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

Johnson v. Pulliam

H. A. Pulliam, an employee, sued his employer, C. G. Johnson, for injuries including the loss of an eye, sustained while spraying grain bins with lye water. Pulliam alleged Johnson was negligent for failing to provide a safe appliance, inspect, warn, and furnish goggles. A jury found Johnson negligent only for not providing goggles, and awarded Pulliam damages. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that there was no pleading or proof establishing a duty for the employer to furnish goggles in this specific context. Consequently, the court found no negligence on the part of the employer and rendered judgment for Johnson.

Workplace accidentEye injuryEmployer negligenceDuty of carePersonal protective equipmentGogglesProximate causeJury findingsAppellate reviewJudgment reversal

References

Case No. ADJ972426 (ANA 0405051)

Regular

Jan 14, 2010

DONALD STOW vs. SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award that found the employer liable for serious and willful misconduct. The Board rescinded the award, finding the applicant's failure to wear provided safety goggles was the proximate cause of his eye injury during a training exercise. While the employer's provision of goggles instead of a full face mask may have been negligent, it did not rise to the level of serious and willful misconduct as defined by law. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the 50% compensation increase.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardDonald StowSanta Ana Police Departmentserious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553industrial injuryright eyepolice officertraining exercisesimunition

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wright

An employee of a railway company sustained an eye injury while working, leading to a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The company denied compensation, asserting the employee willfully failed to use safety goggles provided, contravening posted rules. The court found the employee was unaware the rule applied to his specific task and that "willful failure" implies deliberate, intentional wrongdoing beyond mere negligence. Since the employee did not intentionally disregard an applicable rule, his actions did not constitute willful misconduct under the statute. Consequently, the judgment awarding compensation to the employee was affirmed by the court.

Workers' CompensationEmployee InjurySafety ApplianceWillful MisconductNegligenceEye InjurySledgingStrikingGogglesBurden of Proof

References

Case No. LAO 0871191

Regular

May 12, 2008

FREDDY CORDERO vs. AB-HR COMPANY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior award, finding that the applicant's psychiatric injury was barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d) due to his employment duration of less than six months. The Board determined that being struck in the eye by flying debris, a foreseeable risk in his work environment where safety goggles were required, did not constitute a "sudden and extraordinary employment event." Consequently, the claim for psychiatric injury was denied, and the matter was returned for further proceedings on permanent disability and attorney fees related to the admitted industrial injury to the applicant's right eye.

Labor Code section 3208.3sudden and extraordinary employment eventpsychiatric injurycompensable consequenceindustrial injurysequalaethreshold requirementsix-month employment limitationMajor Depressive Disorderpermanent disability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 23, 2002

Linetskiy v. New York City Transit Authority

Alex Linetskiy, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority (TA), sustained an eye injury at work and, along with his wife, sued the TA for personal injuries, alleging a violation of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for not providing protective goggles. The TA moved to dismiss, asserting the Workers’ Compensation Law as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the TA's motion, ruling that FELA did not apply to the TA because it is not a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce. This decision was affirmed on appeal, distinguishing the TA from other railroads covered by FELA, such as the Long Island Rail Road, by noting the TA only carries passengers intrastate.

FELAWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryInterstate CommerceCommon CarrierNew York City Transit AuthorityPreemptionAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewJurisdiction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 28, 1992

Cappiello v. Telehouse International Corp. of America

Plaintiff Carlo Cappiello, a carpenter, sustained permanent vision loss in his left eye when a masonry nail ricocheted while he was building a plywood form at a construction site. He sued the site owner, Telehouse, and general contractor, Kajima, for negligence and Labor Law violations, specifically concerning the failure to provide safety goggles. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court reversed this decision in part, reinstating claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) and specifically citing regulations 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a) and 12 NYCRR 19.4 (a) regarding eye protection. The court rejected a narrow interpretation of safety requirements, found a triable issue of fact regarding the foreseeability of the eye hazard, and also reinstated the derivative claim for loss of consortium.

Construction AccidentEye InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 241(6)ForeseeabilityDuty to Provide Safety EquipmentAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyRicocheting NailSafe Place to Work

References

Showing 1-6 of 6 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Johnson v. Pulliam

Workplace accidentEye injuryEmployer negligenceDuty of carePersonal protective equipmentGogglesProximate causeJury findingsAppellate reviewJudgment reversal

DONALD STOW vs. SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardDonald StowSanta Ana Police Departmentserious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553industrial injuryright eyepolice officertraining exercisesimunition

Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wright

Workers' CompensationEmployee InjurySafety ApplianceWillful MisconductNegligenceEye InjurySledgingStrikingGogglesBurden of Proof

FREDDY CORDERO vs. AB-HR COMPANY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Linetskiy v. New York City Transit Authority

FELAWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryInterstate CommerceCommon CarrierNew York City Transit AuthorityPreemptionAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewJurisdiction

Cappiello v. Telehouse International Corp. of America

Construction AccidentEye InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 241(6)ForeseeabilityDuty to Provide Safety EquipmentAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyRicocheting NailSafe Place to Work