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

Elezaj v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co.

The case involves a construction worker who suffered a hand injury while descending into an excavation ditch when a backhoe bucket crushed his hand. The court addressed claims brought under New York Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6), and 200. The appellate court determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) was not applicable as the injury resulted from mechanical operation, not gravity, and should have been dismissed by the IAS Court. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment for defendants regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) due to non-delegable duties. Additionally, claims under Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence against Fred Todino and F&V were dismissed as they lacked actual control over the work, and F&V was granted summary judgment on its indemnification claim.

Construction accidentBackhoe injuryLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Vicarious liabilitySummary judgmentIndemnificationExcavationTrench accident
References
11
Case No. CV-23-1298
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Garofalo

Michael Garofalo, a lineman, sustained a left hand crush injury in January 2020 while working for Verizon New York, Inc. His workers' compensation claim was established. Following a permanency evaluation, his treating physician, Brian J. Harley, assessed a 35% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the left hand, using the 2012 New York State Guidelines for Determining Impairment. An independent medical examiner, Thomas R. Haher, initially concurred but later revised his opinion to 50% SLU based on the 2018 Guidelines. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) adopted Harley's 35% SLU opinion, which the Workers' Compensation Board upheld. On appeal, the Appellate Division found that Harley improperly relied on the 2012 Guidelines instead of the applicable 2018 Guidelines, as the first medical evaluation occurred after January 1, 2018. The court determined that the Board's decision, relying on Harley's erroneous application of the guidelines, lacked substantial evidence. The decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for a new determination of the appropriate SLU percentage.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLeft Hand InjuryMedical Guidelines2018 Impairment GuidelinesAppellate ReviewRemittalMedical Opinion ConflictTraumatic InjuryFractures
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Feliciano v. New York City Health & Hospitals Co.

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled the left hand claim time-barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28 and established August 28, 2006, as the disability date for the right hand. On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the right hand's disability date but, on its own motion, set December 2003 as the disability date for the left hand, thereby confirming the left hand claim was untimely. The claimant appealed, arguing against two disability dates for a single claim. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported treating the hand injuries as discrete occupational diseases with separate disablement dates and upheld the time-bar for the left hand claim.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeTime-barred ClaimDate of DisablementBilateral InjuriesAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial ReviewStatute of Limitations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amalgamated Service & Allied Industries Joint Board v. Supreme Hand Laundry, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a joint board representing workers, sued several laundry businesses for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, alleging that the defendants constituted a single employer and failed to provide proper notice of termination. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment against the 'Karten defendants' (Supreme Hand Laundry, Inc. and related entities) due to their failure to secure legal representation after their original counsel was disqualified. The court also denied defendant 2350 Fifth Avenue Corp.'s belated motion to amend its answer to assert a 'good faith' defense under the WARN Act, citing undue delay, potential prejudice to plaintiffs, and futility. Final judgment was entered against the Karten defendants for over $600,000, including attorneys' fees, and other defendants were dismissed by agreement or order.

WARN ActDefault JudgmentRule 54(b) CertificationGood Faith DefenseCorporate VeilAttorney DisqualificationStatutory DamagesBack PayMass LayoffPlant Closing
References
9
Case No. ADJ2135528 (VNO 0550980)
Regular
May 22, 2015

NUREN KARTAL vs. THREE HANDS CORPORATION, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendants, Three Hands Corporation and Oak River Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed the petition. This dismissal is based on the WCJ's report, which found the petition moot because the WCJ issued a corrected award superseding the original one. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning and dismissed the reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportmootSecond Amended Supplemental FindingsFirst Amended Joint FindingsApplicantDefendantInsurance CompanyAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Dunn v. Black Clawson Co.

The plaintiff sustained injuries to his left hand after it was crushed by a paper processing machine, leading him to file a personal injury action against the defendants. The plaintiff alleged the machine was defectively designed and manufactured, and that defendants failed to warn users of its dangers. The Supreme Court initially denied parts of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment on the negligence and strict products liability causes of action was unanimously affirmed. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's expert affidavit raised triable issues of fact concerning the machine's origin and post-manufacture modifications. Furthermore, it concluded that the defendants failed to establish the danger was obvious as a matter of law, leaving the adequacy of warnings as a question of fact for trial.

personal injurydefective designmanufacturing defectfailure to warnsummary judgmentproducts liabilitynegligencetriable issues of factappellate reviewexpert affidavit
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2010

Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of America

Claimant sustained a work-related crush injury to his right hand in 1987 and was granted a lump-sum nonschedule adjustment in 1993, closing his case. He subsequently sought to reopen his claim, submitting a psychologist's report alleging total disability due to chronic major depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and chronic pain disorder stemming from the original accident. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied his application, citing his prior waiver of the right to establish a psychiatric injury and insufficient proof of an unanticipated change in his established condition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant failed to demonstrate an unanticipated change in his medical condition that would warrant reopening the claim, especially given his prior waiver regarding psychiatric injury.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLump-Sum SettlementReopening ClaimPsychiatric InjuryWaiver of RightsChange in ConditionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionAffirmed Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2006

Gasques v. State

A claimant, Wanderlei Casques, and his wife appealed an order from the Court of Claims which granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing their personal injury claims. Casques was injured on a two-point suspension scaffold while working on the Kosciuszko Bridge when his hand was crushed between the scaffold's motor control and the bridge steel. The claimants alleged violations of Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), § 200, and common-law negligence. The appellate court modified the order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, while affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims. A dissenting opinion argued that the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim should also not have been dismissed, citing issues with the scaffold's safety and design.

Personal InjurySummary Judgment AppealLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceScaffold AccidentKosciuszko BridgeWorkplace SafetyElevation Hazard
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sinagra v. Atlantic Ocean Shipping, Ltd.

Plaintiff Vincent Sinagra, a longshore worker, was injured on November 27, 1997, while discharging cargo from the M/V Atlantic Ocean at Howland Hook Marine Terminal in Staten Island, New York. His right hand was crushed and index finger amputated when a container, from which he was removing a stacking shoe, was suddenly lowered by a fellow Howland employee. Sinagra sued Atlantic Ocean Shipping Limited, the vessel owner, alleging negligence under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Azrack, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the Atlantic Ocean did not breach its 'turnover' duty, 'active involvement' duty, or duty to 'intervene'. The court concluded that Sinagra's injury was solely caused by the negligence of his employer, Howland, and his fellow dock gang members.

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActMaritime LawStevedoring OperationsVessel NegligenceSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryAdmiralty JurisdictionShipowner LiabilityLongshoreman InjuryCargo Discharge
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Cocom-Tambriz v. Surita Demolition Contracting, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff who sustained a grave injury after a backhoe crushed his hand, requiring finger amputation and repositioning. The plaintiff initiated an action against B & P Real Estate, LLC, and Centaur Management, Inc., who in turn filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer (the third-party defendant) seeking contribution and common-law indemnification. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not suffer a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would preclude the third-party action. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the appellate court concluding that the plaintiff's injury—the loss of an index finger—constituted a grave injury. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded to the defendants/third-party plaintiffs on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a grave injury.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawContributionCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppealFinger AmputationBackhoe InjuryEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 400 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