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. No. 10
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2022

Jesus Ferreira v. City of Binghamton

Plaintiff Jesus Ferreira was shot by a police officer during the execution of a no-knock search warrant. The federal court found no special duty owed by the City of Binghamton and granted summary judgment to the City. The Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether the 'special duty' requirement applies to municipal negligence claims where the injury is directly inflicted by municipal negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed that a special duty is required for negligence claims against a municipality acting in a governmental capacity and clarified that such a duty can arise in the context of police planning and executing a no-knock search warrant, running to individuals within the targeted premises.

Municipal negligenceSpecial dutyGovernmental functionNo-knock warrantPolice liabilitySearch warrantDuty of careTort lawCourt of AppealsSecond Circuit
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 1994

Quinlan v. Eastern Refractories Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 cause of action. The plaintiff, Robert J. Quinlan, was injured when he was knocked off a stepladder by falling boxes, which struck the ladder. The court found that a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was established as a matter of law because the stepladder was placed in a manner that it could be struck and knocked over by falling material, constituting a failure to provide proper protection. The decision also addressed a third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment, distinguishing between a sole proprietorship and a corporate entity, and reversed the grant of summary judgment to the third-party defendant. The overall order was affirmed as modified.

Labor Law § 240 (1)elevation-related risksafety devicepartial summary judgmentthird-party liabilitycorporate entityproximate causefalling objectstepladder accidentpremises liability
References
5
Case No. OXN 0140967
Regular
Jan 07, 2008

HILDA HERNANDEZ vs. AMERICAN TOOTH INDUSTRIES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and amended the decision. The WCAB affirmed the Labor Code section 5814 penalty for the employer's unreasonable delay in paying a portion of the deposition attorney's fees. However, the WCAB rescinded the Labor Code section 5814.5 attorney's fees award because there was no prior enforcement of an award to justify them, and remanded the issue of sanctions for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5710deposition attorney's feesLabor Code section 5814unreasonable delayLabor Code section 5814.5attorney's feesenforcement of awardreconsiderationWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ6675568
Regular
May 01, 2015

GERALD KEYES vs. B&L MECHANICAL, LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's teeth. This injury was found to be a consequence of medications prescribed for a prior industrial back injury, which caused dry mouth and accelerated tooth decay. While the apportionment of industrial versus non-industrial causation was debated, the Board found substantial medical evidence supporting that the industrial medications contributed to the dental condition. The decision focused on causation of injury, not permanent disability apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGerald KeyesB&L MechanicalLincoln General Insurance CompanyADJ6675568dental injuryhyposalivationPQMEDr. Gregory StephensDr. Dennis Shamlian
References
1
Case No. ADJ1776695 (STK 0194100)
Regular
Dec 28, 2015

LINDA PACKARD vs. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH

This case concerns applicant Linda Packard's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denying specific dental treatment, extraction of tooth 18 and a cantilever bridge. The WCAB denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the requested treatment was not medically necessary due to the industrial injury. The dissenting commissioner argued that the jaw condition was encompassed within the initial finding of "head" injury and that the WCAB retained jurisdiction to enforce the prior award of further medical treatment. The dissent proposed granting reconsideration to find liability for jaw treatment and allow for utilization review of the specific procedure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJindustrial injurytooth extractioncantilever bridgetemporomandibular jointLabor Code section 4610utilization review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norton v. John P. Bell & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff, a drywall finisher, was injured after being knocked off an 18-inch bucket by a door opened forcefully by a defendant's employee. He filed suit against multiple defendants under various Labor Law sections and for negligence, leading to a third-party action against his employer. The appellate court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, affirming that even small elevation differentials can trigger liability, and granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on this claim. Additionally, the court modified the order to grant common-law indemnification to Thompson Hospital and Bell & Sons from the plaintiff's employer, Flower City, as they did not supervise the plaintiff's work.

Labor Law § 240(1)Drywall finishingElevation-related riskSummary judgmentCommon-law indemnificationAppellate reviewWorkplace injuryConstruction accidentThird-party actionPersonal injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szarewicz v. Alboro Crane Rental Corp.

The interlocutory judgment from Supreme Court, Kings County, favoring the plaintiff against Alboro Crane Rental Corp. on liability, was unanimously reversed and vacated on appeal. The plaintiff, a structural steel worker employed by Harrod Steel Erectors, was injured when knocked off a steel beam, allegedly due to a negligent crane operator. A key issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the operator and Alboro, which owned and leased the crane to Harrod. The court found insufficient evidence to establish this relationship, noting the operator was not on Alboro's payroll and Alboro lacked control over his work. Consequently, the complaint against Alboro was dismissed, as liability could not be based on the rental agreement or control theory.

Crane accidentliabilityemployer-employee relationshipvicarious liabilitynegligenceleased equipmentappellate reviewjudgment reversalstructural steel workercrane operator control
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartholomew v. Troy Housing Authority

In December 1989, plaintiff sustained injuries at defendant's apartment building when a gust of wind propelled a screen door into her, knocking her off an entrance landing. Plaintiff alleged negligence due to defendant's failure to reattach a chain, install a railing, and provide an adequately sized landing. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding triable issues of fact regarding the chain's role. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish as a matter of law that the lack of a restricting chain was not a substantial cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceProximate CauseAppealPersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityCourt ProcedureEvidenceTriable Issues of FactAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00626
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2018

Fraser v. City of New York

The plaintiff, Andrew Fraser, moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability concerning his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted this motion. The defendants, City of New York et al., appealed this decision, arguing that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident or a recalcitrant worker. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, found that the record did not support the defendants' argument, concluding that a proximate cause of the accident was the failure of a chain fall to adequately support a load, causing it to strike the plaintiff and knock him from a beam. Citing prior cases, the court unanimously affirmed the lower court's order.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityProximate CauseChain FallWorkplace SafetyFalling ObjectsRecalcitrant WorkerAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valder v. Barnhart

This case involves Debra A. Valder, who sought Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits due to Charcot Marie Tooth Disease. After her applications were denied by an Administrative Law Judge and the Appeals Council, she challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision in District Court. Plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred in evaluating her disability under Listing 11.14, discounting her treating physicians' opinions, and assessing her credibility. The District Court, presided over by Judge Larimer, affirmed the Commissioner's decision, concluding that the ALJ applied correct legal principles and that the findings were supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding Valder's residual functional capacity for sedentary work.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActCharcot Marie Tooth DiseasePeripheral NeuropathySedentary WorkResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleCredibility AssessmentAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals Council
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 18 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