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. 2019 NY Slip Op 02568
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2019

Peterson v. Estate of John Rozansky

Elaine M. Peterson and David Peterson (later his estate) sued the Estate of John Rozansky for personal injuries after David Peterson was struck by Rozansky's vehicle. Rozansky had previously declined deposition citing dementia and subsequently died from Alzheimer's. Plaintiffs sought Rozansky's medical records, but the Supreme Court granted a protective order and denied plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendant's answer, a decision upheld upon reargument. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, ruling that plaintiffs failed to show Rozansky's condition was 'in controversy' for CPLR 3121 (a) purposes, and neither Rozansky nor his estate waived physician-patient privilege. A dissenting opinion argued that Rozansky's refusal to be deposed due to dementia did place his condition in controversy, warranting medical record disclosure.

Personal InjuryMedical Records DiscoveryPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeProtective OrderDiscovery SanctionsStriking AnswerDementiaAlzheimer's DiseaseAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00194 [223 AD3d 747]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2024

Ochoa v. JEM Real Estate Co., LLC

Carlos Ochoa, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while working at a building owned by JEM Real Estate Co., LLC, and leased by Bobwhite Counter, LLC. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted Ochoa's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of a defective ladder in violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court also upheld the denial of summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim due to unresolved factual issues regarding Industrial Code violations.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLadder AccidentWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentStatutory ViolationProximate CauseNondelegable Duty
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jimenez v. Estate of Jimenez

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Julio Jimenez, while operating a grocery business owned by the estate of his deceased brother Roberto, was murdered. Julio's wife, Amparo Jimenez, filed for workers' compensation benefits for herself and their three minor children. The Board found an employer-employee relationship existed between Julio and Roberto's estate, a decision contested by the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the estate, by accepting the benefits of Julio's efforts, was estopped from denying an employment relationship.

Employment RelationshipEstate LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHomicideUninsured Employers' FundAppellate ReviewEstoppelDependent BenefitsBusiness OperationVolunteer Services
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07284 [212 AD3d 78]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Bryant v. Gulnick

Plaintiff Carla F. Bryant was injured in a vehicle accident involving Barbara A. Hyde, a volunteer for Jewish Family Services of Ulster County, Inc. (JFS). Bryant, also a County employee, had previously sought workers' compensation benefits, and a 2019 order determined she and Hyde were coemployees, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy. Bryant sued Hyde's estate and JFS, alleging Hyde's negligence and JFS's vicarious liability. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim against Hyde's estate based on collateral estoppel from the 2019 order but denied JFS's motion to dismiss and instead granted partial summary judgment to Bryant against JFS. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed, finding that collateral estoppel applied to the coemployee issue, thus barring Bryant's derivative action against JFS. Consequently, the court granted JFS's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint against it, and denied Bryant's motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Collateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation LawVicarious LiabilityCoemployee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAutomobile AccidentNegligenceAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentUlster County
References
28
Case No. No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

The Matter of the Claim of Estate of Norman Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corporation

Decedent Norman Youngjohn, employed by Berry Plastics Corporation, suffered work-related injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow in 2014, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Before his permanent partial disability benefits claim for a schedule loss of use (SLU) award was resolved, Youngjohn died in March 2017 from a heart attack unrelated to his work injuries. He left no surviving spouse, minor children, or qualifying dependents. His estate sought the full value of the posthumous SLU award, arguing that 2009 amendments to the Workers' Compensation Law, which permitted lump sum SLU payments, rendered WCL § 15 (4) (d) inapplicable. This section limits an estate's recovery for unaccrued SLU benefits to reasonable funeral expenses in cases of unrelated death without qualifying survivors. The Workers' Compensation Board limited the award to funeral expenses, while the Appellate Division held that the estate was entitled to the portion accrued up to the date of death plus reasonable funeral expenses. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the 2009 amendments on lump sum payments did not implicitly alter WCL § 15 (4) (d)'s limitation on an estate's recovery of posthumous SLU awards. The Court emphasized that section 15 (4) (d) remains in effect and must be harmonized with the amendments, limiting recovery to benefits accrued before death and reasonable funeral expenses for the remainder.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lump Sum PaymentEstate RecoveryFuneral ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAccrual of BenefitsNew York Court of AppealsUnrelated Death
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2016

Estate of M.D. ex rel. DeCosmo v. New York

Plaintiffs, Louis DeCosmo, as administrator of M.D.'s estate and father of J.D., sued various state and county defendants, along with individuals, alleging constitutional rights violations, negligence, assault and battery, wrongful death, and survival action under state law. The claims stemmed from the alleged failure of child protective services to intervene effectively, leading to M.D.'s death and J.D.'s injuries while in their mother's custody and her abusive partner's care. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for state defendants and failure to state a claim for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, supervisory liability, and Monell liability for county defendants. The Court granted the State Defendants' motion based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, dismissing claims against New York State and OCFS. Claims against Dutchess DCFS and Ulster DSS were dismissed as they lack the capacity to be sued. The Court further dismissed Fourth Amendment claims due to a lack of alleged affirmative seizure by Dutchess Defendants and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims, finding no state-created danger or special relationship exception applied as M.D. and J.D. were not in state custody. Supervisory and Monell liability claims against county defendants also failed due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation and insufficient factual allegations of unconstitutional policies or customs. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Civil RightsChild AbuseGovernmental ImmunityEleventh AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment Due ProcessState-Created DangerSpecial RelationshipMonell DoctrineSupervisory Liability
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matthius v. Platinum Estates, Inc.

JAC Construction Corp. appealed an order that granted indemnification to Grymes Hill Estates, Inc., John Culotta, Robert Ricca, and Platinum Estates, Inc., for costs and attorney's fees in a personal injury action. JAC argued that a subsequent agreement with a merger clause superseded a prior indemnification agreement. The court found the January 17th agreement to be incomplete and ambiguous, allowing the admission of the prior indemnification agreement as extrinsic evidence without contradicting the later contract. The indemnification agreement clarified insurance coverage and indemnification obligations. The court also noted that the merger clause did not extinguish the indemnification agreement because the two contracts dealt with different subject matter. Furthermore, JAC demonstrated its intent to be bound by the indemnification agreement by obtaining the required insurance. Therefore, the referee's report, finding the respondents entitled to indemnification, was properly confirmed.

IndemnificationMerger ClauseParol Evidence RuleContract InterpretationAmbiguityExtrinsic EvidenceGeneral ContractorOwnerPersonal InjuriesAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01290
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Estate of Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corp.

Decedent Norman Youngjohn suffered work-related injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow. Prior to the finalization of his schedule loss of use (SLU) award, he passed away from unrelated causes. His estate, as claimant, sought the full SLU award. However, the Workers' Compensation Board limited the payment to reasonable funeral expenses, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (4) (d). The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the statutory interpretation, concluding that only the portion of the SLU award accrued at the time of death, along with reasonable funeral expenses, is payable to the estate. The court modified the Board's decision and remitted the matter for recalculation of the amount owed.

Schedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPost-Mortem AwardEstate ClaimsFuneral ExpensesStatutory InterpretationLump-Sum PaymentAccrued BenefitsMaximum Medical ImprovementAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1993

Guillory v. Nautilus Real Estate, Inc.

An electrician, Guillory, employed by Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc., was injured after falling from a ladder while installing light fixtures in a building owned by Nautilus Real Estate, Inc. He was struck by debris and fell, suffering a shoulder injury. The Supreme Court denied Nautilus's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted Guillory's motion for a directed verdict on liability against Nautilus. The appeals court affirmed these decisions, holding Nautilus liable as the owner for failing to provide adequate safety devices. However, the appeals court modified the judgment by reinstating Nautilus's third-party complaint for implied indemnity against Coyne, reasoning that Nautilus's liability was vicarious and it could recover from the entity that controlled the work. The court also found the jury's substantial damages award for pain and suffering not excessive given the severity of Guillory's injuries and ongoing medical issues.

Ladder fallRotator cuff injuryImplied indemnityVicarious liabilityLabor LawPremises liabilityWorker injuryNegligenceDirected verdictDamages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morelock v. Danbrod Realty Corporation

Plaintiff, injured due to a scaffold collapse during a house renovation project overseen by Joel Levin for Danbrod Realty Corporation, initiated a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against Danbrod, Levin, and Morton Schermerhorn, Jr. The Supreme Court initially granted Danbrod's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. However, on appeal, the court determined that Danbrod, a real estate development corporation purchasing the property solely for commercial renovation and resale, did not qualify for the homeowner exemption from strict liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision regarding Danbrod and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability against Danbrod.

Labor Lawscaffold collapsepersonal injurysummary judgmentstrict liabilityowner liabilitycommercial use exemptionreal estate developmentrenovation projectAppellate Division
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,073 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