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

Speedway Home Improvement Co. v. Gourdine

Speedway Home Improvement Co. (Speedway), a licensed contractor, challenged a decision by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Speedway had contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Hannon for home renovation, but after commencing work and receiving partial payments, abandoned the project due to alleged underestimation, demanding further price increases which the Hannons refused. The Hannons filed a complaint with DCA, which, after a hearing, found Speedway guilty of abandoning the contract without justification and awarded the Hannons $21,110. Speedway argued that the DCA hearing denied due process and that the award was arbitrary and excessive. The court, however, found that Speedway received due process, the DCA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the monetary award was not a disproportionate penalty but merely compensated the Hannons for expenses incurred in hiring a second contractor. Consequently, the court denied Speedway's petition and dismissed the proceeding.

CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewConsumer ProtectionHome Improvement ContractBreach of ContractDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceMonetary DamagesAgency DiscretionContract Abandonment
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed an appeal filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program against the Commissioner of Labor. The appeal sought to challenge a decision by the Industrial Board of Appeals regarding a minimum wage order for the building service industry. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to properly file a notice of appeal with the court of original instance, which was the Industrial Board of Appeals, not the Appellate Division. Additionally, the petitioner failed to timely and correctly serve the notice of appeal on the respondent's counsel at the designated address. Consequently, due to the complete failure to comply with CPLR 5515, the appeal was dismissed.

JurisdictionAppeal ProcedureService of ProcessAppellate DivisionIndustrial Board of AppealsMinimum WageLabor LawCPLRNew York CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06288
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2023

Matter of Puccio v. Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC

Claimant Anthony Puccio, a masonry worker, was rendered paraplegic after falling from a roof in September 2019. He filed a workers' compensation claim against Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC, which the State Insurance Fund (SIF) initially accepted but later controverted, asserting claimant was a partner and not an employee, thus excluded from coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board disallowed the claim, finding claimant was a profit-sharing partner/owner. Claimant appealed, arguing SIF failed to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 21-a (3) and that the Board erred in its finding of no employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the statutory compliance issue was unpreserved and substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that claimant was a partner, not an employee.

Employer-Employee RelationshipPartnership StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCoverage DenialProfit-Sharing AgreementTax Returns as EvidenceAdministrative ReviewReconsideration DenialJudicial Review of Board DecisionsSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. ADJ7056858
Regular
Mar 26, 2012

JISIFRIDO CHAVEZ vs. MENASHA CORPORATION, SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who sustained a shoulder injury and underwent two surgeries. The defendant sought reconsideration of an award of temporary disability, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and was subject to the 104-week statutory cap. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report. The WCJ found the applicant had not reached maximum medical improvement, supported by medical evidence indicating continued pain and failed surgical repair, and the defendant's arguments regarding the cap were already addressed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedLabor Code Section 4656Temporary DisabilityPermanent and StationaryAgreed Medical ExaminerRotator Cuff RepairMaximum Medical ImprovementModified DutyShoulder Injury
References
1
Case No. WCB G074 4160
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2013

Matter of Qualls v. Bronx District Attorney's Office

Claimant William Sanchez sustained a work-related injury to his left knee and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. After two surgeries, his treating physician determined he reached maximum medical improvement and released him to return to work with restrictions. Sanchez then obtained an order of preclusion due to the employer/carrier's failure to provide medical evidence. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this order and rescinded the preclusion order because the employer/carrier provided the required medical evidence before the preclusion order was issued. The employer/carrier appeals the finding that the claimant's period of temporary total disability extends beyond the date of maximum medical improvement.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsKnee InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementPreclusion OrderAppellate DivisionMedical EvidenceTemporary Total DisabilityWork-Related InjurySedgwick CMS
References
0
Case No. CV-22-1999
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Matter of Schuette v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.

Claimant Dennis Schuette appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which denied a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a right wrist injury sustained in a workplace accident in 2019 while working for Consolidated Edison. Medical examiners initially opined that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and sustained a 73⅓% SLU to his right wrist. However, the Board found these medical opinions not credible, as the examiners were unaware of claimant's concurrent diagnosis and treatment for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and his ongoing work activities. The Board concluded that maximum medical improvement was not clearly established, making the SLU determination premature. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UsePermanent ImpairmentMaximum Medical ImprovementCarpal Tunnel SyndromeIndependent Medical ExaminationFraudCredibilityAppellate ReviewMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weinberg v. Alpine Improvements, LLC

The plaintiff, an electrician for T & J Electric, Inc., was injured after slipping from a stepladder while working on a renovation project in a supermarket leased by Super Stop & Shop and owned by Alpine Improvements, LLC. The plaintiff alleged the fall was due to a cheese-like substance on his boots from a different area of the store, asserting claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the ladder was not defective and the fall was solely due to the slippery boots. It also affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 241 (6) claims due to inapplicable or general safety regulations, and the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Discover General Contracting Corporation, as it lacked control over the dangerous condition. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Alpine Improvements, LLC, stating the owner failed to establish it did not create the condition or have notice of it.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentSlippery ConditionStepladder FallConstruction Site InjuryOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor Liability
References
21
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03610
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Matter of Quoma v. Bob's Discount Furniture

The Appellate Division, Third Department, heard an appeal from Joseph Quoma challenging decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding credits for temporary disability payments and the application of the safety valve provision under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w). The court affirmed that the carrier's credit against maximum benefits for payments beyond 130 weeks from the accident date is a strict time measurement, not dependent on 130 weeks of prior payments. However, the court reversed and remitted the Board's amended decision regarding the safety valve provision, finding that the Board erred by solely considering the absence of a specific form (C-4.3) and failing to consider other medical evidence, such as preauthorized surgery, when determining if the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). The case was remitted for a new determination consistent with the court's decision on the safety valve factors.

Workers' Compensation LawTemporary Disability BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityStatutory CapSafety Valve ProvisionMaximum Medical ImprovementJudicial ReviewAdministrative BurdenAppellate DivisionRemittal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pinheiro v. Montrose Improvement District

Plaintiff Joao M. Pinheiro was injured when a trench wall collapsed while he was working on a pipeline installation project. He filed a lawsuit against the defendants, including a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under this law. On appeal, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' interpretation of Labor Law § 240 (1), ruling that trench collapses are not among the special hazards contemplated by the statute. The order was modified to grant partial summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and affirmed as modified.

Labor Law § 240(1)Trench CollapseFalling Earth and StonesConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyExcavation Safety
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 320 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