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

Daza v. Pile Foundation Construction Co.

Jon Daza sued his employer, Pile Foundation Construction Company, Inc. ("Pile"), and other entities, including the City of New York ("The City"), URS Corporation ("URS"), and AECOM Services, Inc. ("AECOM"), after sustaining severe leg injuries on May 20, 2010. Daza was injured when a crane block weighing at least a ton toppled over and crushed his leg while he was working on a barge as part of the East River Promenade construction project. He brought claims under the Jones Act, LHWCA, and New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 246. All parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted Daza partial summary judgment on liability against The City (City of New York and the Parks Department) under N.Y. Labor Law § 240(1). All other claims by Daza against Pile, URS, AECOM, and certain Labor Law claims against The City (§§ 200 and 241(6)) were dismissed. Additionally, cross-claims for indemnification and breach of contract among the defendants were largely dismissed or denied, with The City's contractual indemnity claim against Pile being denied.

Workers' CompensationJones ActLHWCAMaritime LawPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Crane Block AccidentBarge Safety
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1988

Garcia v. Paradise Guard Dogs, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff, a dog groom, who was hired as an independent contractor by the defendant, a kennel operator. The plaintiff was attacked by a pit bull named Samson, a security animal boarded at the defendant's facility, while guiding it back to its cage. The trial court instructed the jury that a person keeping a dangerous animal is presumed negligent, and the plaintiff did not need to prove negligence. The appellate court found this instruction erroneous given the plaintiff was a professional kennel worker aware of the risks. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, stating that the issue of defendant's negligence should not have been taken away from the jury.

Dog Bite InjuryProfessional NegligenceIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityJury InstructionsReversed and RemandedAssumption of RiskKennel OperationsDangerous Animals
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC

Plaintiffs, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Cengage Learning, Inc., and Pearson Education, Inc., initiated a lawsuit against defendants Book Dog Books, LLC and Philip Smyres for alleged copyright and trademark infringement. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to disqualify Neil B. Mooney, counsel for the defendants, asserting that he was a necessary fact witness due to prior testimonies and declarations given in this and related cases concerning a settlement agreement and disclosure obligations. United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to disqualify. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that Mooney's testimony was either necessary to their case or would be prejudicial to the defendants, especially in light of the defendants' unequivocal commitment not to call Mooney as a trial witness.

Copyright InfringementTrademark InfringementDisqualification MotionAttorney-Witness RuleLegal EthicsSettlement AgreementPrejudice AnalysisNecessity of TestimonyFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial Discretion
References
59
Case No. ADJ16597333
Regular
Aug 12, 2025

TYSON PEREZ vs. CHICAGO DOGS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; HOUSTON ASTROS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY/ CHUBB

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued an en banc opinion to grant reconsideration regarding a jurisdictional dispute involving applicant Tyson Perez. Defendant Chicago Dogs sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding of personal jurisdiction, arguing their witness was improperly denied electronic testimony crucial for presenting evidence. The Board found the denial of electronic testimony without due process to be an error, emphasizing the policy favoring adjudication on merits. Therefore, reconsideration was granted, and a final decision is deferred for further review.

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDEN BANCPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPERSONAL JURISDICTIONELECTRONIC TESTIMONYDUE PROCESSFAIR HEARINGSUBSTANTIAL JUSTICELIBERAL PLEADINGDISCOVERY
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scheidt v. Oberg

This case is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the defendants in a dog bite incident. The plaintiff sued after being bitten by the defendants' dog, Ziggy. To recover, the plaintiff needed to prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owners knew or should have known of them. The defendants presented evidence of no prior aggressive behavior or complaints. While the plaintiff described Ziggy barking, growling, and eventually biting him, he failed to provide evidence of the dog's known prior aggressive behavior or the owners' knowledge. A witness also testified to aggressive behavior but admitted not reporting it to the owners. The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants was affirmed due to the plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the dog's vicious propensities and the owners' knowledge.

Dog biteAnimal attackVicious propensitiesOwner knowledgeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewBurden of proofPrior aggressive behaviorSaratoga CountyCourt of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2000

Goldberg v. Lorusso

Joel Goldberg, a realtor, sustained a broken hip after being attacked by a German Shepard named Lupo at the home of Robert and Rose LoRusso, which he was attempting to preview for sale. Despite a "Beware of Dog" sign, the property listing indicated the dog would be secured, yet Lupo was unrestrained due to a communication lapse. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no prior vicious propensities from the dog. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, reinstating Goldberg's complaint. The court ruled that a factual issue existed regarding the foreseeability of danger posed by an unrestrained dog in a house listed for public viewing by unaccompanied realtors, noting that the defendants usually secured the dog, indicating their awareness of potential issues.

Dog attackPersonal injuryNegligencePremises liabilityProperty owner liabilitySummary judgmentForeseeabilityRealtor injuryGerman ShepardAppellate review
References
8
Case No. ADJ8739446
Regular
Aug 26, 2014

SAMUEL TAPIA, JR. vs. GOLDEN STATE HEALTH CENTERS, INC., dba SYLMAR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTERS, Permissibly Self-Insured; METRO RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the applicant sustained an injury during a workplace "dog pile." The initial decision denied the claim, finding it barred by the horseplay defense. On reconsideration, the Appeals Board found the applicant to be a non-participant, despite evidence of prior similar incidents and alleged invitations, and therefore not barred from recovery. The Board rescinded the original denial and found the injury to be industrial, though one Commissioner dissented, deferring to the WCJ's credibility findings that the applicant was a participant.

horseplay defenseindustrial injuryco-workersinstigatorsinnocent bystanderdog pileskylarkingemployer awarenessclocked outWCJ credibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutherland v. City of New York

Norrel Sutherland, a dock builder, was injured on a job site while operating a defective winch motor for Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., his employer. He subsequently filed actions against the City of New York, its departments, Ingersoll-Rand Company, and Pile Foundation, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law, Jones Act, and LHWCA. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against Pile under LHWCA and Jones Act, and some Labor Law claims against the City, but denied dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its prior determinations. Sutherland and the City appealed. This appellate court dismisses several appeals and cross-appeals, upholds the dismissal of Jones Act and Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims, and modifies the prior order to grant summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City. The court extensively discusses the "dual capacity" employer liability under LHWCA, affirming that Pile's alleged negligence related to employer functions, not vessel owner functions, thus granting Pile immunity. The final decision is to modify and affirm the prior orders.

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActJones Act ClaimsLabor Law ClaimsDual Capacity DoctrineVessel Owner NegligenceEmployer ImmunitySummary Judgment AppealConstruction Site SafetyDefective EquipmentMaritime Worker Injury
References
20
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08387 [133 AD3d 719]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2015

Jackson v. Georgalos

Sheena Jackson, a postal worker, sued Jorge Georgalos and Joanne Guerrero-Georgalos for personal injuries sustained at their residence. Jackson alleged that as she delivered mail, the defendants' dog jumped on a screen door, causing it to open and the dog to run out. As she tried to avoid the dog, her ankle twisted, leading to a fall on the steps. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating their dog had no prior vicious propensities, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryDog BiteStrict LiabilityVicious PropensitiesSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLandowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseFactual Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Longstreet v. Peltz

The plaintiff, a nanny, allegedly sustained injuries from a dog bite by the defendant's dog. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the dog lacked vicious propensities, but the Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied the motion. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found that the defendant had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

Personal InjuryDog BiteSummary JudgmentVicious PropensitiesAppellate ReviewNannyPrima Facie ShowingTriable Issue of FactReversedMotion Granted
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 60 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