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
Mar 25, 2004

Foote v. Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership

Glenn A. Foote, Jr., an employee, sustained injuries when a wood chip stacker collapsed at the Lyonsdale Cogeneration Facility. He and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 against the facility owners (Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership and Moose River Energy, Inc.), the stacker designer (American Bin & Conveyor), and the procurer (Wolf & Associates). The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment to Lyonsdale and Wolf, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Lyonsdale and the negligence claim against Wolf. On cross-appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the injury resulted from the structure's collapse rather than the failure of a safety device. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claim against Wolf due to the absence of a duty to the plaintiff, and found a question of fact existed regarding Lyonsdale's supervisory control, thus denying summary judgment to Lyonsdale on other claims.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceElevated Work SiteScaffold LawWood Chip StackerDesign DefectSupervisory ControlContractual Obligation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hughes v. Indian Valley Industries, Inc.

In October 1996, the claimant sustained a work-related injury while lifting a 500-pound tarpaulin, leading to claims of left foot, leg, low back injuries, and nerve damage. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) recognized causal relationship only for the left foot injury, later amending the findings to include the back injury and left foot drop. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently rescinded the portion regarding the left foot drop for further medical evaluation but affirmed the causal relationship for the back injury and rejected the carrier's fraud allegations. The employer and its carrier appealed this Board decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, noting that resolving conflicting expert medical testimony falls within the Board’s authority and concluding that the Board’s findings on the back injury and fraud issue were supported by substantial evidence.

CausationBack InjuryLeft Foot DropMedical EvidenceConflicting TestimonyWorkers' Compensation FraudPreexisting ConditionSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate AffirmationJudicial Review of Administrative Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 1979

In re the Claim of Jones v. John W. Cowper Co.

On April 26, 1973, the claimant sustained a work-related accident, with an initial employer's report specifying only a left foot injury. Four years later, on May 17, 1977, the claimant filed a compensation claim for injuries to his left ankle and back. While the original foot injury claim was not contested, the claim for the back injury was due to untimely notice. A referee initially allowed the foot injury claim but disallowed the back injury claim on March 5, 1979, due to lack of timely notice. The Workers’ Compensation Board, on December 27, 1979, modified this decision, finding that notice and causal connection for the back condition were established. However, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, which bars claims not filed within two years of the accident. The court concluded that the Board lacked the power to amend a claim after two years to include an unrelated condition. The matter was remitted to the board for further proceedings.

Timely NoticeClaim AmendmentStatute of LimitationsBack Injury ClaimWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard Decision ReversalRemittalWork-Related InjuryFoot InjuryJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guijarro v. V.R.H. Construction Corp.

Ernesto Guijarro, an employee of Guaranteed Clean Air, Inc., sustained injuries from a 13-foot fall from a scaffold during a renovation project at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He and his wife subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against V.R.H. Construction Corp., Delta Airlines, Inc., and Port Authority of New York & New Jersey. In turn, these entities, collectively referred to as the respondents, initiated a third-party action against Guaranteed Clean Air, Inc. for contractual indemnification. Guaranteed moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which bars such actions unless there is a 'grave injury' or a written indemnification contract executed prior to the accident. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The appellate court ruled that because the indemnification contract was not entered into before the accident, as explicitly required by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, Guaranteed's motion for summary judgment should have been granted, and the third-party complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionSummary JudgmentIndemnification ContractWorkers' Compensation LawAsbestos AbatementConstruction AccidentScaffold FallGrave InjuryContractual Indemnity
References
5
Case No. ADJ7744103, ADJ7580182 (MF)
Regular
May 05, 2014

IGNACIO RAMOS vs. GREENWOOD DAIRY, CALIFORNIA LIVESTOCK PROCDUCERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the judge's decision, and returned the case for further proceedings. While finding no permanent disability from the applicant's industrial foot injury, the Board determined that the applicant did sustain industrial injury in the form of a fungal foot infection and bilateral foot sprain. The Board disagreed with the trial judge's finding of no industrial injury and clarified that Dr. McCoy's opinion, not Dr. Panting's, constituted substantial evidence regarding the nature of the industrial injury. Issues of temporary disability and further medical treatment were deferred to the trial level for further decision.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAgreed Medical ExaminerPanel Qualified Medical ExaminationSubstantial EvidenceMedical ProbabilityOsteonecrosisFreiberg's infractionFungal foot infection
References
0
Case No. ADJ3955433 (ANA 0306675) ADJ3565604 (ANA 0306676) ADJ3447287 (SBR 0263874)
Regular
Oct 28, 2013

PATSY HENDRY, vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Patsy Hendry's petition for reconsideration. This denial was based on the WCJ's credibility findings and reliance on the agreed medical examiner's opinion. Crucially, there was insufficient medical evidence establishing that the applicant's October 1991 right foot injury was permanently disabling prior to the December 1991 specific injury.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAgreed Medical ExaminerCredibility FindingPermanently Disabling ConditionSpecific InjuryDisabilityWCJReconsideration Denied
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stark v. Rotterdam Square

Plaintiff James E. Stark, an employee of Monahan & Loughlin, Inc., suffered severe injuries from a 20-foot fall through a roof at Rotterdam Mall during HVAC installation, leading to a personal injury lawsuit against Rotterdam Square and McCreary Metals, Inc. This document details appeals concerning various summary judgment motions. The appellate court affirmed plaintiffs' summary judgment on liability against Rotterdam Square under Labor Law § 240 (1) and Rotterdam's contractual indemnity claim against Monahan & Loughlin, Inc. However, the court reversed the summary judgment against McCreary Metals, Inc., citing factual disputes over control of the work. The denial of Taxco, Inc. and Silver Bow Resources and Chemical Corporation's motion to renew was also affirmed.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentRoof FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContractual LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewWorkplace Safety
References
6
Case No. ADJ2308109 (OAK 0275439) ADJ01058712 (OAK 0275438)
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

LINDA BURT-FOSS vs. CHILDREN'S FAIRYLAND, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a zoo keeper injured in 1999. The applicant sustained a left foot and ankle injury that led to a Charcot foot condition, resulting in total permanent disability. The defendant argued for apportionment of disability, citing a medical opinion suggesting pre-existing conditions contributed to the Charcot foot. However, the Board affirmed the applicant's total permanent disability, finding the industrial injury was a contributing cause and therefore not subject to apportionment. The Board also found that the defendant waived issues regarding the overlap of disabilities from prior knee injuries by failing to raise them in their petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorCharcot footIndustrial InjuryInciting EventCompensable Consequence
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00466
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

Matter of Kennedy v. 3rd Track Constructors

Claimant Alastair Kennedy, an operating engineer, sustained work-related injuries in October 2019 after falling into a hole at a job site, filing for workers' compensation benefits for left shoulder, foot, and ankle injuries. The employer's carrier accepted the claim for foot and ankle but contested neck and left shoulder injuries, also raising a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found claimant's testimony regarding the accident and prior injuries not credible, denying the claims for neck and left shoulder injuries and imposing mandatory and discretionary penalties under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's findings regarding the non-causal relation of neck and left shoulder injuries and the mandatory penalty for misrepresentations. However, the Court reversed the discretionary penalty of total disqualification from future wage loss benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense, modifying and affirming the Board's decision as so modified.

Workers' CompensationInjury ClaimCredibility AssessmentMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a ViolationMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWage Loss BenefitsCausal RelationshipMedical Evidence
References
16
Case No. ADJ10544189
Regular
Nov 09, 2018

MARTIN GARCIA vs. HARVEST CHURCH, GUIDEONE MUTUAL

This case involves an applicant seeking an increased permanent impairment rating for a psychiatric injury stemming from a physical injury to his left foot. The applicant's injury occurred when a gate fell on his foot, and he claims this constitutes a "violent act" under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(A), which allows for exceptions to a general rule against increased impairment ratings for psychiatric issues arising from physical injuries. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the gate falling was an accidental injury, not a violent act, based on definitions involving strong physical force or extreme threats. The Board found the applicant's experience lacked the intensity seen in prior cases of violent acts, such as being struck by a car or being crushed in a vehicle.

AOE/COEViolent ActLabor Code Section 4660.1Psychiatric InjuryPermanent Impairment RatingPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Industrial InjuryPreponderance of the Evidence
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 12,767 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