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

Claim of Smith v. City of Rochester

Claimant, a parking monitor, appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board which denied her benefits for an accidental injury. The injury occurred when she fell on a wet floor while returning from an unpaid lunch break. The Board ruled the accident did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, a decision which was upheld on appeal. The court found that because the claimant had discretion over her lunch arrangements and the employer gained no benefit from her choice of restaurant, the incident fell outside the scope of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial of benefits.

Workers' CompensationLunch Break InjuryScope of EmploymentAccidentOff-DutyPersonal DiscretionEmployer AuthorityAppellate ReviewBenefit DenialInjury Claim
References
2
Case No. ADJ9405272
Regular
Feb 03, 2015

JACQUELINE LOTT vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning a prior decision that barred the applicant's claim under the going and coming rule. The Board found the applicant sustained an industrial injury on March 19, 2014, while employed as an administrative assistant. The injury occurred as she slipped and fell in a parking structure while on an unpaid lunch break, on the shortest route from her office to a snack bar. The Board determined this incident fell within the "reasonable margin of time and space" for ingress and egress from the employer's premises.

going and coming ruleindustrial injuryworkers' compensationadministrative assistantoffice complexparking structureunpaid lunch breakingress and egresspremises line rulecompensable
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zirkel v. Frontier Communications of America, Inc.

Plaintiff Edward Zirkel was injured during his employment when a utility pole he was removing fell and struck him. He and his wife subsequently sued the pole's owners, alleging negligence and violations of various Labor Law provisions. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, leading to this appeal. Plaintiffs contested the dismissal of their Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the Labor Law § 240 claim was inapplicable as the pole was not being hoisted or secured when it fell, and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked sufficient proof linking excavation to the pole's instability.

Utility Pole AccidentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentFalling ObjectExcavationWorkplace InjuryAppellate ReviewGravity-Related AccidentStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2009

Ramirez v. Willow Ridge Country Club, Inc.

This judgment affirms the dismissal of a complaint after a jury trial in New York County. The plaintiff, injured during demolition work at Willow Ridge Country Club, Inc., claimed he fell from a deck with a removed railing, while the foreman stated he fell from ladders while pulling a gutter. The jury found a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation but determined it was not the proximate cause, accepting the foreman's account. The appellate court upheld the verdict, addressing the plaintiff's challenges regarding jury instructions on attorney-client privilege and the preclusion of an unsigned deposition transcript under CPLR 3116. The court found no grounds to overturn the jury's decision or the trial court's rulings.

Demolition accidentJury verdictLabor Law violationProximate causeCPLR 3116Attorney-client privilegeAppellate affirmancePersonal injuryConstruction safetyWitness testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Natoli v. Smith Corona Marchant Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workmen's Compensation Board decision regarding an accidental injury sustained by an electrician. The claimant fell at work in August 1968, striking his head. A critical dispute arose over whether he fell from a ladder or the floor. Despite a compensation claim mentioning a ladder, the claimant later couldn't recall, and medical histories were silent on the matter. Two co-workers were present but their testimony was not entered into the record. The appellate court found that the Board erred in denying an opportunity to take the testimony of these crucial witnesses, deeming it necessary in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings to incorporate the co-workers' testimony and issue a new decision.

Accidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewRemandWitness TestimonyEvidentiary IssuesInterest of JusticeHead InjuryEmployment Accident
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teixeira v. Korth

A plaintiff, an employee of Mount St. Mary's Hospital, fell in 1994. A co-worker, Patricia Croft, reported to her supervisor, Cheryl Korth, that the plaintiff's brother stated the plaintiff fell in a driveway. This led to the Hospital controverting the plaintiff's Workers' Compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a defamation lawsuit against the Hospital, Croft, and Korth. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding the statements protected by qualified privilege. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal against Korth and the Hospital, but reversed the dismissal against Croft, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Croft made the statement with knowledge of its falsity.

DefamationQualified PrivilegeMaliceSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationAppellate DecisionEmployer LiabilityCo-worker MisconductFalse StatementReversal
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01537 [170 AD3d 431]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2019

Nieto v. CLDN NY LLC

Plaintiff Frank Nieto fell from a ladder while installing light fixtures in CLDN NY LLC's building. He was compelled to stand on 20-foot-high display cases and then return to the ladder to complete the installation, which was partially positioned over the cases. During this maneuver, he lost his balance and fell. The Appellate Division, First Department, found the ladder to be an inadequate safety device for the task, irrespective of its stability or plaintiff's attempt to recover balance. The court rejected the defendants' claim of sole proximate cause, affirming that plaintiff's positioning was essential to the work. Consequently, the prior order was modified to grant plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, with other aspects of the order affirmed.

ladder fallinadequate safety deviceLabor Law § 240 (1)summary judgmentliabilityconstruction accidentwork at heightAppellate DivisionFirst Departmentproximate cause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1970

Scalia v. Auserehl & Son Contracting Corp.

Frank Sealia, an iron worker, sued Auserehl & Son Contracting Corp., the general contractor, and Simon Holland & Son, Inc., a subcontractor, for personal injuries sustained from a fall at a construction site. Sealia claimed he fell from an "AUS"-marked ladder when its top rung broke. However, photographic evidence taken shortly after the accident by Auserehl's employee showed a different ladder, not owned by Auserehl, at the accident scene. Furthermore, two eyewitnesses and the investigating police officer testified that Sealia fell when a guy wire or steel cable snapped. The court concluded that the jury's verdict of $115,000 in favor of Sealia was against the weight of the credible evidence. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted.

Personal InjuryNegligenceConstruction AccidentLadder FallEvidentiary WeightJury VerdictNew TrialGeneral ContractorSubcontractorThird-Party Action
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04821
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2023

Liu v. Whitestar Consulting & Contr., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a prior order concerning a construction site accident where plaintiff Noah Liu fell 20 to 25 feet from an unguarded plywood ramp. The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Moinian, Newmark, and Whitestar Consulting & Contracting, Inc. It was determined that the ramp, spanning a significant height differential and lacking safety devices, fell under the purview of Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, the defendants' motions to dismiss this claim were denied, and the plaintiffs were awarded summary judgment as to liability. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were deemed academic in light of this ruling.

Construction accidentLabor Lawunguarded rampfall from heightsummary judgmentAppellate Divisionpersonal injurypremises liabilityelevation differentialsafety devices
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05443
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2020

Alonso v. Reed Elsevier, PLC

Plaintiff William Alonso was injured when a display fell on him at a vision trade show while working as a greeter. The display, designed and manufactured by Freeman according to Reed's specifications, fell as Javits Center electricians were mounting a television monitor. The Supreme Court denied Freeman's motion for summary judgment, denied Reed's motion to amend its answer with a Workers' Compensation defense, and granted Reed's motion for contractual indemnification against Freeman. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against all defendants except Freeman and Reed, citing issues of fact regarding Freeman's design and Reed's control. The court affirmed the denial of Reed's Workers' Compensation defense and the grant of contractual indemnification.

Summary judgmentNegligenceRes ipsa loquiturWorkers' Compensation defenseContractual indemnificationAppellate reviewDisplay fallTrade show injurySpecial employee doctrineMotion to amend answer
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 856 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