CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of J.

The case concerns an adoption proceeding initiated by a same-sex couple. The court addresses whether to appoint a guardian ad litem for the adoptive infant, a practice previously common in same-sex adoptions due to their novelty. Citing Matter of Dana, which affirmed the legality of same-sex and heterosexual unmarried couple adoptions, the court found no legal basis to treat same-sex adoptions differently from those by married couples, where a guardian ad litem is not automatically appointed if statutory requirements and social worker reports are favorable. The court concluded that denying equal treatment could violate federal and state equal protection clauses, deciding against appointing a guardian ad litem unless special circumstances are present.

AdoptionSame-sex coupleGuardian ad litemBest interest of childEqual protectionDomestic Relations LawStatutory interpretationCourt of AppealsSurrogate's CourtFamily Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amo v. Little Rapids Corp.

Plaintiff, Amo, was injured after falling 16 inches from a boulder while jackhammering during a construction excavation project. He sued Little Rapids Corporation (LRC), the property owner, and Laframboise Group, Ltd., the general contractor, under Labor Law § 240 (1). After a second jury trial, it was determined that the height differential was 15 inches and plaintiff fell a total of 16 inches. The Supreme Court ruled this constituted an elevation-related risk under the Labor Law. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the specific circumstances of the fall from an elevated, wet work surface while jackhammering constituted a "special hazard" under Labor Law § 240 (1), especially given the uncontroverted absence of safety devices.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related RiskFall From HeightWorkplace SafetyScaffolding LawIndemnification ClaimsJury FindingsAppellate AffirmationAbsence of Safety Devices
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2007

Glover v. New York City Transit Authority

Plaintiff sustained personal injuries when her leg became trapped in the gap between a subway platform and a downtown No. 4 train at the 149th Street—Grand Concourse station in February 2001. She alleged that the defendant, the transit authority, breached its duty of reasonable care by maintaining a gap exceeding its own six-inch maximum guideline. A jury initially found in plaintiff's favor, awarding damages for pain and suffering. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint, concluding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence that the gap was greater than six inches at the time of the accident. The majority found the plaintiff's expert's measurements, taken years later, to be speculative. A dissenting opinion argued that the jury's verdict was rational, given the plaintiff's testimony, her physical dimensions, and the expert's opinion, which collectively supported the inference that the gap exceeded six inches.

Subway accidentPersonal injuryPremises liabilityNegligenceDangerous conditionGap between platform and trainJury verdictAppellate reviewSufficiency of evidenceExpert testimony
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1996

DeMayo v. 1000 Northern of New York Co.

Frank DeMayo, an electrical foreman, sustained a knee injury while exiting a utility shanty at a job site owned by 1000 Northern of New York Company. The distance from the doorway to the ground was approximately 13 inches. DeMayo and other plaintiffs sought damages under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was modified by granting summary judgment to the defendants regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, as a 13-inch step was not deemed an elevation-related hazard under the statute. The remainder of the order was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawElevation HazardWorkplace AccidentAppellate CourtKnee InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityNew York LawStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital

John Langan sought wrongful death damages for his civil union partner, Neil Conrad Spicehandler, against St. Vincent's Hospital of New York after Conrad's death. The central issue was Langan's standing as a 'surviving spouse' under EPTL 5-4.1, which the defendant challenged due to the same-sex nature of their relationship. The Supreme Court initially denied the dismissal motion, but the appellate court reversed, affirming that New York's statutory definition of marriage, and thus 'surviving spouse,' applies exclusively to different-sex couples. Citing legal precedents like Baker v Nelson and Matter of Cooper, the court concluded that restricting marital rights to different-sex couples does not violate equal protection. The decision emphasized that any redefinition of marriage to include same-sex relationships falls within the purview of the Legislature, not the judiciary.

Wrongful deathSame-sex civil unionSurviving spouseEPTL 5-4.1Equal Protection ClauseConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationMarriage definitionJudicial precedentLegislative intent
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. ADJ17834281
Regular
Nov 10, 2025

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. CUSTOM PIPE COUPLING, FEDERAL INSURANCE CO.

Applicant Jose Martinez sought reconsideration of a finding that his injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment, as it fell under the "going and coming" rule. The WCJ's initial finding was based on a May 26, 2023 motor vehicle accident occurring while Martinez was driving a company truck home for personal use, specifically to transport scrap metal given to him by his employer. The Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied reconsideration, concluding that none of the exceptions to the "going and coming" rule applied, as there was no benefit to the employer for Martinez to take the company truck home once the delivery task was removed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Errand ExceptionAOE/COEMotor Vehicle AccidentCompany Vehicle
References
10
Case No. ADJ10829802
Regular
Apr 26, 2019

Antonio Corona vs. Custom Pipe & Coupling Company, Inc., The Hartford, Insurance Company of the West

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify findings regarding applicant Antonio Corona's industrial injury. The Board substituted new findings, confirming injury to his thoracic spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, and left knee, and held the claim was not barred by the post-termination defense. The Board awarded temporary total disability from April 25, 2017, through June 8, 2017, and permanent disability at 18%, returning the matter to the trial level to resolve issues of average weekly wage, additional temporary disability periods, and an EDD lien. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, particularly regarding the credibility of the applicant's treating physician and the absence of substantial evidence to support the defense's arguments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardMachine OperatorThoracic Spine InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryLeft Shoulder InjuryBilateral Wrists InjuryBilateral Hands InjuryLeft Knee Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ7460656
En Banc
Jan 15, 2013

DENNIS MCKINLEY vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, declining to exercise jurisdiction over a cumulative injury claim due to a reasonable mandatory forum selection clause in the employment contract specifying Arizona as the forum, coupled with the applicant's limited connection to California.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDEN BANCCUMULATIVE INJURYPROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYERARIZONA CARDINALSTRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANYFORUM SELECTION CLAUSEMANDATORY FORUMLIMITED CONNECTIONEMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
References
61
Showing 1-10 of 109 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational