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

Argento v. Airborne Freight Corp.

Salvatore Argento sued Airborne Freight Corporation and Local 851 for negligence, alleging that his spouse became addicted to drugs during her employment at Airborne. Local 851 moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing it owed no duty to Argento to ensure a safe workplace for his spouse. The court found that Argento's claim, based on a common law negligence theory, was either preempted by federal labor law due to its reliance on a collective bargaining agreement or failed under common law because unions generally do not owe a duty to provide a safe workplace, and even if they did, it wouldn't extend to a non-employee spouse. Consequently, Local 851's motion to dismiss was granted, and the complaint against it was dismissed with prejudice.

NegligenceLabor LawFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of CareMotion to DismissUnion LiabilityLoss of ConsortiumEmployment LawDismissed with Prejudice
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2001

Medrano v. Pritchard Industries, Inc.

An order from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated July 2, 2001, granted defendant Gottesman's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against him. The court unanimously affirmed this decision. Gottesman, as president of the plaintiff's employer, was obligated to provide a safe workplace to the plaintiff as a coemployee. However, the plaintiff's sole recourse for the alleged breach of this duty is through workers’ compensation benefits, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). Any duty Gottesman had as the owner of the premises was deemed indistinguishable from his duty as a coemployee.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentCoemployee LiabilitySafe Place to WorkPremises LiabilityNew York LawAppellate DecisionExclusive RemedyWorkers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6)
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Waterview Nursing Home

A 63-year-old nurse’s aide sustained work-related injuries and her workers’ compensation case was established. She was offered a light-duty position by her employer, but her daughter informed the employer that claimant could not work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the specifics of the light-duty position, its requirements, duties, or suitability for the claimant's medical limitations. The court held that without such proof, the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLight-Duty AssignmentVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketMedical LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittiturNurse's AideEmployment Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romanelli v. Long Island Railroad

Frank Romanelli sued his employer, the Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR), under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), alleging that his work as a track worker exposed him to hazardous environmental contaminants, causing pulmonary and cardiac problems. LIRR filed three motions in limine to preclude Romanelli's medical experts from testifying on causation, Romanelli from testifying about exposure to toxins at unsafe levels, and Romanelli from testifying that LIRR had a duty to provide a respirator. The court granted the motions in part and denied in part. It allowed treating physicians to testify on the causation of respiratory issues by workplace exposures due to common knowledge, but not on the link between pulmonary and cardiac problems without demonstrated methodology. Romanelli was permitted to testify about his first-hand exposure to dust, fumes, and chemicals but not to label them as 'hazardous contaminants' or at 'unsafe' levels. Lastly, Romanelli could not testify about LIRR's legal duty to provide a respirator, but could testify about not being provided one despite requests and that its absence caused him to ingest more harmful substances.

FELAMotions in LimineExpert Witness TestimonyLay Witness TestimonyCausationEvidentiary StandardsWorkplace ExposurePulmonary ConditionsCardiac ConditionsRespirator Requirements
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pato v. Sweeney Steel Service Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Buffalo Labor Temp, suffered the loss of his right arm due to an overhead crane accident in a building leased by the defendant. He sued the defendant for negligent supervision, failure to warn, and failure to provide a safe workplace, arguing he was not their employee. The defendant counter-argued that the plaintiff was their special employee, making workers' compensation his exclusive remedy. The jury found the plaintiff was not a special employee, the defendant breached its duty to provide a safe workplace, and this breach proximately caused the injuries. The jury also found the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment and order, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

NegligenceSpecial EmploymentSafe Workplace DutyWorkers' Compensation Exclusive RemedyJury VerdictAppellate AffirmanceWorkplace AccidentCrane InjuryErie County CourtLabor Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Grigorescu

Plaintiffs, employees of National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), were injured in an automobile accident while traveling in a taxi from their rail-yards to a hotel during a required layover in New York. They sought damages from Amtrak under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), arguing that Amtrak owed them a non-delegable duty to provide safe transportation. Amtrak moved for summary judgment, contending it had no duty of care and was not liable for the taxi’s negligence, as it neither selected the taxi nor had a contract with the taxi company. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Amtrak, ruling that while the taxi ride could arguably be within the course of employment, FELA requires employer negligence or negligence by its agents. Crucially, the court found no contractual relationship between Amtrak and KIG Taxi, thus precluding agency and liability for the taxi's actions, and rejected the creation of a non-delegable duty in this context.

Federal Employers' Liability ActSummary JudgmentCourse of EmploymentAgencyNon-delegable DutyRailroad LiabilityTaxi AccidentEmployee InjuryInterstate CarrierEmployer Negligence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1986

Goslin v. La Mora

Plaintiff's decedent was fatally injured while setting up defendant Nancy L. La Mora's mobile home, which slipped from its jacks and crushed him. The wrongful death action was based on theories of the mobile home being a dangerous instrumentality, the site constituting a dangerous condition imposing a higher duty of care on the landowner, and the landowner's failure to provide a safe workplace. The court found that an unelevated mobile home is not a dangerous instrumentality, and while on jacks it could be, the decedent's voluntary work placed it in that position. The court also determined that the landowner was not expected to recognize the falling trailer as a hidden danger, and the difficulties of balancing it were obvious to the decedent, who had prior experience. Finally, the contention regarding failure to provide a safe workplace was rejected because the decedent was a volunteer, not an employee protected by Labor Law.

Wrongful DeathMobile Home AccidentLandowner LiabilityDangerous ConditionDangerous InstrumentalityVolunteer WorkerPremises LiabilityNegligenceSafe Workplace DutyDuty of Care
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 1995

Bombard v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company and Mid-Hudson Auto Wreckers, Inc., thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff, Bombard, had previously alleged a breach of common-law duty to provide a safe workplace and sought to amend the complaint to include a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that there was no new evidence to support Central Hudson's supervision or control over the plaintiff's work, a prerequisite for the safe workplace claim. Similarly, Mid-Hudson was found not to have exercised sufficient supervision, and the danger posed by power lines was deemed readily observable, negating a duty to protect from obvious hazards. Furthermore, the court denied the motion to amend the complaint, ruling that the work of removing cars from a junkyard did not fall within the scope of 'construction, excavation or demolition' as required by Labor Law § 241 (6).

Summary judgmentLabor LawWorkplace safetySupervision and controlObvious dangerAppellate reviewCommon-law dutyNegligenceStatutory interpretationJunkyard accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2006

Claim of Melo v. Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a night shift direct care worker, was assaulted and raped by a stranger in her workplace at the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, Inc. in 1997. The Board determined that her injury did not arise out of her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court found no causal link between the claimant's employment and the attack, noting it did not occur while she was performing duties, the building was not identified as her specific workplace, the assailant was not a coworker, and there was no employment-related motivation or increased risk from her work environment.

Assault in workplaceRapeInjury arising out of employmentCourse of employmentCausal relationshipWork environment riskEmployer liabilityWorkers' Compensation Board appealUnidentified assailantOff-duty injury
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 14,514 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