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. 2023 NY Slip Op 05661 [221 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Keilitz v. Light Tower Fiber N.Y., Inc.

Christopher Keilitz, an electrician working for Hellman Electric Corp., was injured when a vacuum fell into a manhole and struck him during the installation of fiber optic cables. Keilitz sued Light Tower Fiber New York, Inc., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., and Empire City Subway (ECS) under New York Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially denied Keilitz's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims and dismissed claims against the defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Keilitz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against ECS and Light Tower. The court determined that Keilitz's work constituted an 'altering' activity under the statute and that the falling vacuum presented an elevation-related risk, rendering other related claims moot.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskManhole AccidentFiber Optic InstallationAlteration WorkAppellate DivisionThird-Party ClaimContractual Indemnification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2001

Claim of Barbuto v. Albany County Sheriff's Department

A deputy sheriff injured her neck during police academy training and was assigned light duty. She was later offered a telecommunications dispatcher role after a rescinded termination, but declined it, leading to her formal discharge. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling she had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market by refusing the light duty assignment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was no medical evidence showing her disability prevented her from performing the offered light duty, thus her refusal constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, disentitling her to benefits.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketLight Duty RefusalNeck InjuryDeputy SheriffTelecommunications DispatcherTerminationBenefits DenialCounsel Fees
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Browne v. Medford Multicare

The claimant, a certified nurse's aide, sustained injuries after falling at work and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. After rejecting multiple offers for light-duty assignments, the employer and its workers' compensation carrier contended that she had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. The Workers' Compensation Board concurred with the employer's assertion, ruling that the claimant had no compensable lost time following the final light-duty work offer. This decision was appealed. The court affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence, including the opinion of an orthopedic surgeon who stated that the claimant had a moderate partial disability but was capable of performing light-duty work within specified restrictions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLight-Duty WorkVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedic Surgeon OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDisability AssessmentCertified Nurse's AideEmployer Offer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Yannucci v. Consolidated Freightways

A claimant, a truck driver, sustained back and shoulder injuries after striking a curb. He returned to a light-duty clerical position but later retired. The Workers' Compensation Board denied him further benefits, ruling he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. On appeal, the central issue was whether his disability caused or contributed to his retirement. Conflicting medical opinions were presented, with his treating physician recommending retirement due to a 75% permanent partial disability, while the employer's physician believed he could continue light-duty work. The Board credited the employer's physician, noting the employer's accommodations and no lost work time in the light-duty role. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported its decision.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary withdrawal from labor marketDisability benefitsLight-duty workMedical evidencePermanent partial disabilityCredibility determinationSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewRetirement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Peluso v. Fairview Fire District

The claimant, a firefighter captain, retired in May 1993 due to a disabling back condition from work-related injuries sustained over 20 years of employment. He applied for various disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits, concluding he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market by failing to accept an available light-duty assignment. The chief of the fire department testified that light-duty positions were available and the claimant refused one prior to retirement without citing work-related injury as his reason. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion, noting medical evidence showed only a partial disability and no inability to perform light-duty tasks. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decisions.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketLight-Duty AssignmentFirefighterDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewMedical EvidencePartial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Board
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1999

Light v. Antedeminico

Roger Light, a maintenance worker for Pawling Corp., initiated this action against Anthony Antedeminico d/b/a Tony’s Construction, a subcontractor, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained after falling into an excavated pit. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the common-law negligence claim, maintaining that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendant's potential negligence. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its original decision, prompting the defendant to appeal. The appellate court subsequently reversed the lower court's order, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action. The court reasoned that the defendant successfully demonstrated a lack of sufficient control over the construction site, thereby owing no duty of care to the injured plaintiff, and the plaintiffs failed to present a triable issue of fact to counter this.

Personal InjuryCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDuty of CareConstruction SiteSubcontractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityDutchess CountyNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Waterview Nursing Home

A 63-year-old nurse’s aide sustained work-related injuries and her workers’ compensation case was established. She was offered a light-duty position by her employer, but her daughter informed the employer that claimant could not work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the specifics of the light-duty position, its requirements, duties, or suitability for the claimant's medical limitations. The court held that without such proof, the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLight-Duty AssignmentVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketMedical LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittiturNurse's AideEmployment Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 1987

Claim of Muzio v. City of Albany

In 1985, a laborer for the City of Albany sustained severe chest and leg injuries in a motor vehicle accident, leading him to seek workers' compensation benefits. The claim was contested by the employer, who argued the claimant refused available light work and voluntarily left the job market. Medical testimonies from Dr. John Fortune and Dr. Dominic Belmonte established that the claimant was restricted to light duties, specifically prohibiting heavy lifting. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the claimant's benefits, determining he had a moderate partial disability and that the work offered by the employer exceeded the medical restrictions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the employer's "light duty" tasks, including lifting 50-pound salt bags, were beyond medical limitations, and therefore, the claimant's refusal did not constitute a voluntary removal from the labor market.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentChest InjuriesLeg InjuriesModerate Partial DisabilityLight Duty RefusalVoluntary Removal from Labor MarketMedical RestrictionsEmployer AppealBoard Affirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medlin v. Rome Strip Steel Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Alexander Medlin sued Rome Strip Steel Co., Inc. (RSS) and several individuals for disability discrimination under the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law, and for improper disclosure of confidential medical information. Medlin, a Hot Roll Slitter Operator, suffered a non-work-related back injury and requested light duty or accommodations upon his return, which RSS denied after a functional capacity evaluation (FCE). The EEOC found probable discrimination by RSS regarding accommodation denial and confidentiality breaches. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contesting Medlin's disability status, RSS's duty to provide light duty, and the impropriety of medical information disclosure. The court denied RSS's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning Medlin's perceived disability, RSS's failure in the interactive accommodation process, and the alleged improper disclosure. However, the ADA claims against individual defendants Kirk Hinman, Roger Pratt, and Walter Race were dismissed, as were claims against Impact and Cindy Bush, along with Title VII and ADEA claims.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationFunctional Capacity EvaluationConfidential Medical InformationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPerceived DisabilityInteractive ProcessNew York State Human Rights Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1988

Miller v. Long Island Lighting Co.

The plaintiffs appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 17, 1988, which affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Long Island Lighting Co. The case stemmed from a personal injury claim by Thomas Miller, who allegedly fell from a ladder at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station on March 24, 1980. Miller's testimony was inconsistent, and the plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement to judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), which mandates proper safety devices for workers. The trial court's refusal to direct judgment in the plaintiffs' favor and its denial of a motion to set aside the verdict were upheld, as the resolution of credibility and accuracy issues is within the jury's province, and the decision was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Absolute LiabilityProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewCredibilitySuffolk County
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,173 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