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. 2018 NY Slip Op 05102 [163 AD3d 1449]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2018

Matter of Lift Line, Inc. (Amalgamated Tr. Union, Local 282)

This case involves an appeal to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, concerning an arbitration award related to an employee's termination. The Supreme Court had partially vacated an arbitrator's decision to reinstate a grievant with back pay and benefits, reimposing the original penalty of employment termination. The Appellate Division reviewed whether the arbitrator's award was irrational or exceeded his power under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii), considering a collective bargaining agreement's "just cause" provision and an attendance policy. The court found that the arbitrator's determination, which considered the specific facts of the grievant's one-minute tardiness, offered a "colorable justification" and was not irrational. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the petition to vacate, granted the application to confirm, and fully confirmed the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee TerminationJust Cause StandardAttendance PolicyJudicial Review of ArbitrationCPLR Article 75Appellate Division DecisionLabor DisputeReinstatement with Back Pay
References
13
Case No. VNO 0461030
Regular
Nov 30, 2007

CHRISTOPHER MENDEZ vs. GRAY LIFT, INCORPORATED, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award and returned the case for further proceedings to determine the general employer's (Lyon Lift, Inc.) potential liability for the applicant's injury. This is to address whether Lyon had duties under workplace safety laws (Labor Code sections 6400-6404) and if its negligence, if any, contributed to the injury caused by a defective saw provided by the special employer. The Board will then determine if Lyon is entitled to a third-party credit for the applicant's settlement based on its own negligence and established credit principles.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardThird-party creditGeneral employerSpecial employerImputation of negligenceLabor Code sections 6400-6404Workplace safetyPrimary employerSecondary employerDual employment
References
5
Case No. ADJ1583406 (AHM 0127701)
Regular
Oct 27, 2008

VERONICA SINGH vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Kaiser Foundation Health Plan's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's order for a hospital bed and lift chair. The Board found the applicant's treating physician provided substantial medical evidence supporting the necessity of these items for pain relief and recovery post-surgery. Defendant's arguments regarding the lack of medical evidence and attorney fees were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKaiser Foundation Health Planhospital bedlift chairindustrial injuryspine surgerylumbar spineProdisc replacementneuropathic paindurable medical equipment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamm v. Lore

Plaintiff was injured after falling from a chair lift during the course of his employment at Tamarack Ridge Ski Area. He subsequently sued property owners John M. Lore, Jr. and Chalis Lore under Labor Law § 240 (1), despite having already received Workers' Compensation benefits. The complaint against John M. Lore, Jr. was dismissed by stipulation. The Supreme Court granted Chalis Lore's motion for summary judgment, finding her to be a co-employee acting within the scope of her employment, which barred the plaintiff's action under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, also noting that even if not barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law, plaintiff's injury occurred during routine maintenance, an activity not protected by Labor Law § 240 (1).

Workers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentCo-employee ImmunityProperty Owner LiabilitySki Facility AccidentChair Lift IncidentRoutine Maintenance ExclusionAppellate DivisionErie County Supreme Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2002

Anderson v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed his CPLR article 78 proceeding. The proceeding contested the termination of his employment by respondent Workers' Compensation Board. The Board's Chair directed respondent Peter J. Molinaro to terminate petitioner's employment while out of state. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the Chair has the authority to appoint and remove employees under Workers' Compensation Law § 149 and that the delegation order under Workers’ Compensation Law § 152 did not divest him of this authority. The Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the Chair's request for Molinaro to inform petitioner of the termination did not alter the decision's origination and was within the Chair's power.

Employment TerminationWorkers' Compensation BoardDelegation of AuthorityJudicial ReviewPublic Officer AuthorityAdministrative LawNew York LawAppeal DecisionAgency ActionChairperson Authority
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02158 [215 AD3d 1205]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Soler v. Donato, Inc.

The claimant, Wilfredo Soler, suffered work-related back and hip injuries in August 2017. Following a denial by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge in August 2021 for lumbar fusion surgery, the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board initially authorized the surgery in November 2021. However, this authorization was subsequently rescinded by the Chair due to the prior denial on identical medical evidence. The Workers' Compensation Board then denied Soler's application for review of the Chair's rescission, deeming it outside its scope of review. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that orders of the Chair are not subject to review by the Board under Workers' Compensation Law § 23.

Lumbar fusion surgeryAuthorization for treatmentRescission of orderBoard reviewAppellate DivisionScope of reviewTreating physicianEmployerInsurance carrierMedical evidence
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05651 [187 AD3d 1662]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Shaw v. Scepter, Inc.

Mark A. Shaw, the plaintiff, sustained injuries while attempting to unload a man lift from a flatbed truck on the defendant Scepter, Inc.'s property. The incident occurred when the lift unexpectedly rolled off the flatbed, causing the lift's basket to fall and injure Shaw. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing Shaw's claims under Labor Law, which was subsequently appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Shaw's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and a portion of his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court found that issues of fact existed regarding whether the lift was defective and if the defendant had notice of such a defect, thus precluding summary judgment for either party on these specific claims.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentMan Lift AccidentConstruction Site SafetyElevation-Related RiskIndustrial Code ViolationsWorker InjuryFlatbed TruckAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

SCAC Transport (USA) Inc. v. S.S. Danaos

This case addresses two summary judgment motions concerning a 1977 shipping accident where a truck and lift were damaged. The vessel owner, Danais Shipping Company, and the charterers, Big Lift USA, Inc. and Big Lift Shipping (N.A.) Inc., sought summary judgment against Universal Maritime Service Corp., the stevedoring company. They argued that Universal should be bound by findings from a prior London arbitration, which held Universal negligent, through the common law practice of 'vouching in.' The court, however, denied both motions. It ruled that Universal, having not consented to or adequately participated in the arbitration, was not collaterally estopped from litigating the factual issues in the judicial forum.

Collateral EstoppelArbitrationVouching InIndemnificationSummary JudgmentStevedore NegligenceCharter AgreementMaritime LawContractual PrivityFull and Fair Opportunity
References
18
Case No. 535327
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Wilfredo Soler

Wilfredo Soler appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying his request for full Board review. Soler's claim for work-related injuries was established, and he was initially denied authorization for lumbar fusion surgery by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). Although the Chair of the WCB later granted the request, this order was subsequently rescinded because the WCLJ had already denied the same request based on identical medical evidence. The WCB denied Soler's application for review, asserting that a Chair's order falls outside its scope of review under Workers' Compensation Law § 23. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Chair's orders are not subject to Board review.

Workers' CompensationAppealBoard ReviewMedical AuthorizationLumbar Fusion SurgeryRescission OrderScope of ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial ReviewAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1987

Lunde v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc.

In this personal injury action, the plaintiff, an employee of Nichols Yacht Yard Inc., suffered a hand injury while attempting to fix a malfunctioning boat lift. The defendant, also located on the premises, had employees instruct the plaintiff, who was not part of the trained 'yard crew,' to launch a boat using a 'big lift' when no trained personnel were available. The lift malfunctioned due to a displaced cable, and as the plaintiff attempted to correct it per defendant's instructions, his hand was pulled into a pulley. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, found the defendant 95% at fault, based on a jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the defendant, as an owner or general contractor, owed a duty to provide a safe workplace under Labor Law §200, and that the jury's finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySafe Workplace DutyLabor Law §200Jury VerdictAppellate ReviewComparative NegligenceBoat Lift AccidentEmployer LiabilityExpert Witness Testimony
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 272 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