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. CA 13-02002
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2015

VEROST, DREW M. v. MITSUBISHI CATERPILLAR FORKLIFT AME

Drew M. Verost and his wife initiated an action for damages after Mr. Verost sustained injuries operating a forklift at Nuttall Gear, LLC. The accident involved a forklift with a disabled safety switch, which pinned Mr. Verost between the mast and the roll cage. The complaint alleged strict products liability against the manufacturer and sellers, and negligence against Nuttall Gear and related entities. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the products liability claims, citing a substantial alteration to the product by a third party. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the negligence claims against the Nuttall Gear defendants, finding a triable issue of fact concerning Mr. Verost's special employee status.

Product LiabilityNegligenceSummary JudgmentForklift AccidentDisabled Safety SwitchSpecial EmployeeWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewDesign DefectAlteration of Product
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07124
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2019

Matter of Horvath v. Mega Forklift

Claimant, Thomas M. Horvath, the owner of Mega Forklift, sustained a right shoulder injury in a work-related motor vehicle accident on March 13, 2015. Despite undergoing surgery in September 2015, he failed to notify the employer's workers' compensation carrier until February 2017, nearly two years post-accident. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, citing his failure to provide timely notice under Workers' Compensation Law § 18 and the resulting prejudice to the carrier. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, underscoring that as an employer's officer, Horvath was required to notify the carrier, and the significant delay prevented the carrier from a timely investigation or independent medical examination before his surgery.

Timely NoticeEmployer OwnerMotor Vehicle AccidentShoulder InjurySurgical RepairPrejudice to CarrierIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

VeRost v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants in a personal injury action. The plaintiff, Drew M. VeRost, was injured while operating a forklift at Nuttall Gear, LLC, where he was assigned by a temporary employment agency. The accident occurred because the forklift's seat safety switch had been intentionally disabled. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of strict products liability claims against the forklift manufacturers and sellers, finding that a third party's modification rendered the product unsafe. However, the court reversed the dismissal of negligence claims against the Nuttall Gear defendants, concluding that an issue of fact existed regarding whether the plaintiff was a special employee of Nuttall Gear, which would have barred his lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Forklift accidentProducts liabilityDefective designSafety switch disablementSummary judgmentSpecial employee statusWorkers' Compensation LawTemporary employmentAssumption of controlAppellate review
References
12
Case No. ADJ9365068
Regular
May 26, 2015

JOSE PORTILLO vs. CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, INC., TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a worker's compensation applicant who sought reconsideration of a decision denying his claim for injury AOE/COE. The applicant alleged a forklift incident caused his injuries, but the WCJ found he failed to prove the incident occurred or that his employer was notified prior to his termination. While the WCAB adopted the WCJ's findings, they also noted that even if an incident and notice were proven, the applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence connecting post-termination treatment to the alleged injury, thus precluding benefits under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10).

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJcredibility determinationpost-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)forklift incidentdeposition testimonymedical treatmentnotice to employer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. ADJ4093711 (AHM 0140492)
Regular
Jul 14, 2010

ROBERTO DELGADILLO vs. CONSTRUCTION FORKLIFT SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted petitions for reconsideration filed by both the applicant and the defendant. This decision arose from the April 27, 2010 ruling in the case of Roberto Delgadillo v. Construction Forklift Services; State Compensation Insurance Fund. The WCAB cited statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues as reasons for granting reconsideration. This action is intended to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to enable a just and reasoned decision after further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetitions for ReconsiderationApplicantDefendantConstruction Forklift ServicesState Compensation Insurance FundStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ1494233 (AHM 0129018)
Regular
Aug 15, 2011

PAUL MONTIEL vs. M & C FORKLIFT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant M&C Forklift, Inc. sought reconsideration to set aside a stipulated workers' compensation award. They argued applicant's counsel improperly added a clause incorporating an agreed medical evaluation report's body parts after the defendant signed. The Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. The Board found the defendant was not aggrieved as the medical report did not list specific body parts, and the applicant stipulated no psyche injury. The Board noted drafting issues but found them insufficient to invalidate the award.

Stipulated AwardReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluationLeft Upper ExtremityInternal InjuryBody PartsAgreed Medical EvaluatorStandiford Helm IIM.D.Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
References
0
Case No. 702991/18
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2026

Cannon v. H&L Contr., LLC

The plaintiff, James Cannon, sued H & L Contracting, LLC for personal injuries sustained in two separate incidents in January 2018 while working on a project to repair the fender system of the Whitestone Bridge. The first incident involved slipping from an excavator step into a hole on a crane mat on a barge. The second incident occurred when the plaintiff allegedly fell while crossing a gap between a concrete pile cap and the shore after disembarking the barge. The Supreme Court denied both the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision regarding the defendant's motion, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint for both incidents. The court found that the defendant's liability for the first incident fell under its role as employer, not vessel owner, under the LHWCA, and for the second incident, the injury occurred on an extension of land, not an appurtenance of the vessel. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation ActVessel NegligenceEmployer LiabilityDual-Capacity DefendantAdmiralty LawMaritime LawAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Molloy v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought performance of duty disability retirement benefits after sustaining multiple left shoulder injuries across several work-related incidents. While the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System conceded permanent disability, the respondent Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the initial June 6, 2008 incident was not the proximate cause of the disability. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with orthopedic surgeon Andrew Beharrie linking the disability to the 2008 incident, while independent medical examiner Bradley Wiener attributed the need for surgical intervention to subsequent incidents in 2009 and 2010. The Hearing Officer and Comptroller credited Wiener's opinion, noting the lack of immediate medical treatment after the first incident and the petitioner's return to full duty. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding it to be supported by rational, fact-based medical opinion and substantial evidence.

Disability RetirementPerformance of DutyCorrection OfficerShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationComptroller's DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Regan

Petitioner, a police officer, was involved in two line-of-duty incidents in 1971 and 1979 where he shot armed individuals. These incidents caused him serious psychological trauma and rendered him incapable of working. He filed for accidental disability retirement benefits in 1982, which were denied by the State Comptroller. The Comptroller’s reasons were that the incidents did not constitute 'accidents' under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363, and the petitioner failed to timely file notice as required. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing that the incidents arose in the regular course of duty and were within the petitioner’s training and expected duties, thus not constituting accidents. Furthermore, the court found no compliance with the statutory notice requirements.

accidental disability retirementpolice officerline-of-duty injurypsychological traumaState Comptroller determinationadministrative reviewCPLR Article 78 proceedingtimely notice requirementWorkers' Compensation BoardRetirement and Social Security Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 992 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