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

Maldonado v. Olympia Mechanical Piping & Heating Corp.

The plaintiffs, former employees of Olympia Mechanical Piping & Heating Corp., initiated an action to recover unpaid wages and supplemental benefits under Labor Law § 220, alleging they were paid below the prevailing rate for public works projects. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed several causes of action, including breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and suretyship, for failure to state a cause of action, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-application to serve a second amended complaint. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the dismissals of the various causes of action. However, the appellate court modified the original order by granting the plaintiffs' cross-application for leave to serve a second amended complaint, citing the absence of prejudice to the defendant and the potential merit of the plaintiffs' claims.

Labor LawPrevailing WageBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Leave to AmendAppellate ReviewPublic Works
References
18
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00606 [191 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Pisarski v. Accurate Plumbing & Heating Co.

Claimant Michael Pisarski established a workers' compensation claim for occupational bilateral knee and shoulder injuries after retiring as a union plumber. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately set the date of disablement as July 12, 2016, and a Worker's Compensation Law Judge ruled Norguard Insurance Company, which covered the employer during Pisarski's last employment, was the liable carrier, as no active policy was found on the disablement date. Norguard appealed, distinguishing its case from Matter of Cammarata, where the employer had ceased business. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board erred by not determining the business status of Accurate Plumbing and Heating Co. on the date of disablement. This determination is crucial to establish whether Accurate Plumbing was required to maintain an insurance policy or if the Uninsured Employers Fund should be responsible. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDate of DisablementInsurance Carrier LiabilityUninsured Employers FundAppellate ReviewRemittalBusiness Status DeterminationPolicy CoverageKnee Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2000

Oil Heat Institute of Long Island Insurance Trust v. Gerber Life Insurance

Plaintiff Oil Heat Institute of Long Island Insurance Trust (OHI) sued Gerber Life Insurance Company (Gerber), Island Group Administration, Inc. (IGA), and RMTS Associates, alleging Gerber refused to reimburse stop-loss claims and issue a letter of certification to a lender. OHI had established a self-insurance program, and Gerber issued an aggregate stop-loss (ASL) policy. OHI commenced the action on the day the ASL policy expired, before the attachment point for reimbursement could be calculated and before submitting proper documentation. The Supreme Court denied Gerber's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that OHI failed to demonstrate compliance with the ASL policy's reimbursement terms, lacked material facts to support its claims, and initiated the action prematurely. Both causes of action were dismissed against Gerber.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentAggregate Stop-Loss PolicyContract DisputeReimbursementPolicy TermsAppellate ReviewGood FaithDocumentation RequirementsAgency
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2004

Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n v. a & M Heating, Air Conditioning, Ventilation & Sheet Metal, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Local Union Number 38 and A & M Heating, with the Union alleging A & M Heating is the alter ego of Hudson Heating to enforce a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and compel arbitration. The court first clarified its jurisdiction, affirming its ability to determine alter ego status but not to impose post-expiration obligations under the NLRA. After examining factors such as management, business purpose, equipment, operations, customers, supervision, common ownership, and anti-union animus, the court concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish alter ego status. Consequently, the Union's motion to compel arbitration was denied, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, with judgment entered in favor of the defendant.

Labor LawAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationSubject Matter JurisdictionLMRA Section 301NLRABankruptcyChapter 7Summary Judgment
References
57
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01871 [236 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Mondrangon v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.

Plaintiff Adan Mondrangon initiated an action against The Trustees of Columbia University after allegedly tripping over plumber's net and pipes in the basement of a university building. Columbia University subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp., their plumbing contractor, seeking indemnification and alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, attributing responsibility for the hazardous condition to Absolute. Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp. moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, presenting evidence that their recent work did not involve the materials cited. However, the court found triable issues of fact arising from conflicting deposition testimonies, particularly concerning whether Absolute had worked on the basement project and could have been the source of the materials. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying Absolute's motion for summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, concluding that credibility issues were for a jury to determine.

Premises liabilitypersonal injurysummary judgmentindemnificationbreach of contractthird-party claimconflicting testimonytriable issues of factAppellate DivisionNew York courts
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keating v. Gaffney

Kenneth W. Keating sued Robert J. Gaffney, the Suffolk County Executive, and other county entities and officials, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL). Keating, who suffers from severe heat intolerance, claimed he was constructively discharged and not reasonably accommodated after being reassignment to a job involving prolonged exposure to extreme heat. The court dismissed Keating's ADA discrimination claims, finding he did not sufficiently allege a disability as defined by the act. However, the court allowed Keating's ADA retaliation claim to proceed, ruling that he had a good faith belief in his right to accommodation and that his resignation could be considered a retaliatory constructive discharge. All NYHRL claims were dismissed due to Keating's failure to file a timely notice of claim with Suffolk County.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans With Disabilities ActADA RetaliationConstructive DischargeHeat IntoleranceEmployment LawRule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissNew York Human Rights LawNotice of ClaimSuffolk County
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dosztan v. Kraft Foods

The claimant, an assembly line technician, sought workers' compensation benefits for an occupational airway disease, citing exposure to grinding dust, cardboard dust, and heat-shrinking polyethylene fumes at work. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer appealed, contending the Board’s determination lacked substantial evidence and relied on speculative medical opinions. However, the court found sufficient support in the medical reports and testimony of physicians Michael Lax and David Rechlin, who established a causal link between the claimant's condition and workplace exposures. The court emphasized that resolving conflicting medical evidence falls within the Board's purview and that the absence of OSHA violations does not preclude a finding of occupational disease, ultimately affirming the Board’s decision.

Occupational DiseaseAirway DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical CausationWorkplace ExposureSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewConflicting Medical EvidenceOSHA Compliance
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of De Maio v. Rockford Plumbing & Heating

MISSING

Order AffirmedAppellate DecisionJudicial PanelConcurring OpinionMemorandum Decision
References
1
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02783
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

Cantalupo v. Arco Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

Paul Cantalupo, an injured worker, and his wife, suing derivatively, commenced a personal injury action against Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., and others. Cantalupo was injured while performing air conditioning services when an unsecured 500-pound condenser head fell on his leg. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Chase's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order by granting summary judgment to Chase for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, thereby dismissing it. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and common-law negligence claims, citing triable issues of fact regarding whether Cantalupo was engaged in repair work, whether Chase had notice of a dangerous condition, and whether Cantalupo was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityRoutine Maintenance
References
20
Case No. CV-23-1834
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Matter of Gunness v. Prime Piping & Heating Inc.

Claimant Arnold Gunness appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board denying his claim for causally-related injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. Gunness initially filed a claim for a right foot fracture sustained in June 2020. Later, he filed a second claim alleging additional injuries to his neck, back, and left knee due to an altered gait and cane usage following the foot injury. Medical opinions conflicted; a podiatrist's opinion was disregarded, and a physiatrist's opinion on causation was deemed unpersuasive due to claimant's inconsistent accounts and lack of understanding of the mechanism of injury for the additional body parts. An orthopedic surgeon also could not establish a causal connection. The WCLJ and the Board found that the claimant failed to establish a causal connection, citing a lack of credible medical evidence and the claimant's inconsistent accounts. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence.

CausationWorkers' CompensationInjury ClaimMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationBoard AuthorityAppellate ReviewAltered GaitRight Foot FractureNeck Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 702 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