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

Graves v. City of New York

Gary Graves, a former licensed clinical social worker at Rikers Island for Corizon Health Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Correction (DOC) after his security clearance was revoked. This revocation stemmed from a 2015 investigation into Corizon, which revealed systemic failures and security breaches at Rikers Island. Despite Graves's extensive rehabilitation efforts and a successful 14-year tenure at Rikers Island with no disciplinary issues, his security license was revoked based on criminal convictions from 1972-1987. Graves argued that the respondents failed to consider all eight factors mandated by Correction Law, article 23-A, §§ 752 and 753. The court, however, dismissed the petition, ruling that the Correction Law provisions do not apply to DOC's revocation of security clearance for individuals working at its facilities, interpreting such access as 'membership' in a law enforcement agency, which is exempt from the statute.

Security Clearance RevocationCorrection Law Article 23-ACriminal Background CheckLaw Enforcement ExemptionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial Review of Administrative DeterminationRehabilitation EvidenceRikers Island Correctional FacilityCivilian Employment in Law EnforcementAdministrative Appeal
References
23
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05608
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2019

Graves v. Stanclift, Ludemann, McMorris & Silvestri, P.C.

Plaintiff John A. Graves commenced a legal malpractice action against the defendant law firm, Stanclift, Ludemann, McMorris & Silvestri, P.C. Graves alleged that the defendant attorneys failed to provide adequate representation in an underlying action, specifically by neglecting discovery, not presenting evidence, and failing to advance his counterclaim. The Supreme Court partially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, allowing two claims of legal malpractice to proceed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that Graves' allegations, when liberally construed and accepted as true, sufficiently stated a cause of action for legal malpractice.

Legal MalpracticeAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAttorney NegligenceDiscovery FailureCounterclaimProximate CauseDamagesProfessional Duty
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubies v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Judge Read dissents from the majority's interpretation of 'permanent total disability' concerning acquired brain injuries under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Read argues for a narrower definition, requiring the inability to perform usual daily living activities, aligning with legislative intent for the 1996 amendment to section 11. This amendment aimed to strictly curtail third-party actions against employers by narrowly defining 'grave injuries.' The dissent stresses that the list of grave injuries is exhaustive, not illustrative, and should not be broadly interpreted. Therefore, the definition of 'permanent total disability' for an acquired brain injury should essentially require a vegetative state to protect employers as intended by the Legislature.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjuryAcquired Brain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionsDissenting OpinionJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a third-party defendant's (Yankee One Dollar Stores, Inc.) motions for summary judgment against a defendant (Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.). The plaintiff, Bush, was injured at work and sued Mechanicville, who then brought a third-party action against Yankee for indemnification. Yankee argued that plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that there was no written contractual indemnification agreement. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the 'grave injury' claim, finding sufficient evidence of permanent total disability due to a traumatic brain injury. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification, ruling that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 requires an *express written contract* of indemnification from the employer, which was not present between Yankee and Mechanicville.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryContractual IndemnificationBrain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityHoldover TenantExpress AgreementAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. ADJ8191986, ADJ8717495
Regular
Oct 13, 2014

MICHAEL BEN GRAVES vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denies Michael Ben Graves' two petitions for reconsideration and/or removal. The Board found the petitions were improper successive petitions or challenged non-final orders. Specifically, a prior order directing a vexatious litigant hearing was not a final determination, and the applicant failed to show prejudice or irreparable harm justifying removal. The Board affirmed its previous denial of the applicant's prior petitions and will proceed with the vexatious litigant hearing.

Vexatious litigantPetition for reconsiderationPetition for removalAppeals BoardFinal orderSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harmSuccessive petitionNewly aggrievedExtraordinary remedy
References
8
Case No. ADJ8191986; ADJ8717495
Regular
Nov 06, 2014

MICHAEL BEN GRAVES vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied applicant Michael Ben Graves's emergency motion for a stay of proceedings. The WCAB found that no proceedings were currently pending before it, making the motion moot regarding appeals board actions. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate a connection between his pending Court of Appeal writ of review and the undecided vexatious litigant issue at the trial level, nor did he show irreparable harm. Consequently, the motion to stay trial-level proceedings was also denied.

Vexatious litigantEmergency motion for stayWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for writ of reviewCourt of AppealPresiding workers' compensation administrative law judgeWCAB Rule 10782Pro se applicantSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2011

Tzic v. Kasampas

The injured plaintiff fell 15 feet from a sidewalk shed opening at a construction site due to inadequate safety devices. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the owners, Christina Serafis Kasampas and Nicholas Serafis, and determined the plaintiff suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The court denied the owners' cross-motion for summary judgment on indemnification and partially denied MSS Construction Corp.'s cross-motion to dismiss claims. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this order, finding the statutory violation was a proximate cause of the injuries and rejecting arguments of contributory negligence or the owners' lack of control over safety.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightSidewalk ShedLabor Law 240(1)Strict LiabilityGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentIndemnification ClaimsProximate Cause
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. 711 Group, Inc.

The case involves an appeal concerning a plaintiff's left index finger injury, deemed a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Third-party defendant 3-D Laboratory, Inc. sought summary judgment, arguing the injury was not grave, but this motion was denied by both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division. The Appellate Division further granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff and defendant/third-party plaintiff 711 Group, Inc., affirming that the plaintiff indeed suffered a grave injury. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision, emphasizing that the "loss of an index finger" constitutes a grave injury, supported by evidence of the plaintiff losing both interphalangeal joints and requiring multiple corrective surgeries.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawIndex Finger AmputationSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionCourt of AppealsInterphalangeal JointsStatutory InterpretationCorrective SurgeriesMedical Amputation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2006

Bissell v. Town of Amherst

Plaintiff Peter E. Bissell sustained grave injuries while employed by McGonigle & Hilger Roofing Company (M & H) during roofing work for the Town of Amherst. The Town of Amherst, as defendant and third-party plaintiff, sued M & H for indemnification and contribution, alleging a grave injury. M & H moved for summary judgment, asserting the third-party action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 as plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury. The Supreme Court denied M & H's motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that M & H's own submissions created a factual issue regarding the plaintiff's grave injury, thus failing to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjurySummary Judgment MotionIndemnification ClaimContribution ClaimBilateral Lower Extremity ParaparesisParalysis of FeetFootdropLoss of Use
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Cocom-Tambriz v. Surita Demolition Contracting, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff who sustained a grave injury after a backhoe crushed his hand, requiring finger amputation and repositioning. The plaintiff initiated an action against B & P Real Estate, LLC, and Centaur Management, Inc., who in turn filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer (the third-party defendant) seeking contribution and common-law indemnification. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not suffer a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would preclude the third-party action. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the appellate court concluding that the plaintiff's injury—the loss of an index finger—constituted a grave injury. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded to the defendants/third-party plaintiffs on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a grave injury.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawContributionCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppealFinger AmputationBackhoe InjuryEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 286 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