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 04372 [219 AD3d 819]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2023

Iannaccone v. United Natural Foods, Inc.

The plaintiff, Louis Iannaccone, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which had granted summary judgment dismissing his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Iannaccone alleged personal injuries suffered in October 2015 while installing camera systems for United Natural Foods, Inc., when an extension ladder he was on, resting on landscaping rocks, shifted and caused him to fall. The Supreme Court initially granted motions by the defendant and third-party defendants (Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., and Protection One Systems, Inc.) to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant and third-party defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Iannaccone's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division noted Iannaccone's testimony about the unsafe alternative placement of the ladder and the lack of evidence that available safety ties, not at the job site, would have prevented the fall. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim were denied.

Personal InjuryLadder SafetyLabor Law 240(1)Summary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewProximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentWorkplace Injury
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Di Piazza v. George Campbell Painting Co.

The case involves the appeal of a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a decedent's widow. The decedent sustained fatal injuries from electrocution while working for the employer. The Board initially awarded death benefits, temporary total disability, and facial disfigurement, but later rescinded the disability award, upholding the disfigurement. The employer appealed, arguing the disfigurement award was improper without a permanent partial disability finding. The court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the evidence of grave injuries supported total, not partial, disability, making the disfigurement award irrational. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationFacial DisfigurementTemporary Total DisabilityDeath BenefitsConcurrent AwardsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMedical EvidenceAccidentElectrocution
References
4
Case No. ADJ9103621
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

DEBORAH MARKHAM-GRIVAS vs. VALLEJO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, XL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding of industrial injury on August 20, 2013. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, which found the applicant's testimony credible regarding a physical incident where she was pushed into a file cabinet during a classroom disruption. Despite the applicant's delay in reporting a physical injury, the judge considered her testimony of being in shock and seeking treatment two days later as reasonable. The Board deferred further issues, including the nature and extent of injuries, and noted the defendant's arguments about witness availability and the PQME's opinion did not warrant overturning the initial finding.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryCredibility Finding"At Risk" StudentsDisruptive ClassroomPhysical InjuryContusionsUnion President
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2007

Orlando v. Richmond Precast, Inc.

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which denied their motion to compel the plaintiffs to comply with certain discovery requests. Specifically, the defendants sought authorizations for workers' compensation and medical records of plaintiff Barbara Orlando from a prior accident in 1999. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting the defendants' motion to compel compliance with item No. 11 of their discovery notice. The court reasoned that the nature and severity of the plaintiff's prior physical injuries are material and necessary to the defense as they may impact the amount of damages recoverable for a claim of loss of enjoyment of life. The plaintiffs were ordered to comply within 90 days.

Personal InjuryDiscoveryAppellate ReviewMotion to CompelMedical RecordsWorkers' Compensation RecordsDamagesLoss of Enjoyment of LifePrior InjuriesMaterial and Necessary Discovery
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04268
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2024

Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund

This case involves an appeal by State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. against a judgment that denied its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award had found State Farm liable for workers' compensation benefits paid by the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund to an injured driver. The Supreme Court confirmed this award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, applying closer judicial scrutiny due to the statutory nature of the arbitration, affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the arbitrator's determination had sufficient evidentiary support and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Arbitration LawAppellate PracticeWorkers' CompensationInsurance LitigationJudicial Review of ArbitrationStatutory MandateAutomobile InsuranceDenial of PetitionConfirmation of AwardDamages Recovery
References
8
Case No. ADJ1916556 (RIV 0038645) ADJ2708670 (ANA 0358650)
Regular
Nov 15, 2013

GHEORGHE TOMA vs. BASIC ELECTRIC, INC.; SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) successfully petitioned for reconsideration, overturning a previous finding that the applicant was eligible for SIBTF benefits. The Board determined that the applicant did not qualify because the WCJ improperly considered disability arising from the natural progression of a prior injury after a subsequent injury. SIBTF liability is based solely on the disability level at the time of the subsequent injury, which was 32% in this case. Consequently, the applicant was found not qualified for SIBTF benefits.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751permanent disabilitycumulative traumaspecific injuryPetition to ReopenAgreed Medical Examinerapportionmentnew and further disabilityHaendiges v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. ADJ6647815, ADJ6426800, ADJ6673816
Regular
Nov 25, 2013

LUIS BANUELOS vs. ACORN ENGINEERING COMPANY, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the finding of industrial injury (stroke) by the WCJ, as defendants argued it lacked sufficient explanation. While the WCJ's initial decision was inadequately explained, medical evidence and the applicant's credible perception of work-related stress supported the finding of a stroke. The Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury as a stroke, but deferred all other issues, including the nature and dates of injury, for the WCJ to address with proper explanation. The defendant's reliance on psychiatric injury standards was misplaced, as physical injury from stress has different evidentiary requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factindustrial injurystrokecumulative injuryspecific injurydate of injuryindustrial causationsubjective perception
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06248 [175 AD3d 895]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Matter of Workman v. Dumouchel

This case concerns an appeal regarding an order for the euthanasia of a dog, Wally, after it bit a three-year-old child, causing severe lacerations requiring surgery and 30 stitches to the buttocks. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the County Court's decision, which had upheld the Town Court's euthanasia order. The majority concluded that the child's injuries constituted a "serious physical injury" leading to "serious or protracted disfigurement" under Agriculture and Markets Law. The dissenting opinion argued that petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence of protracted or serious disfigurement and criticized the Town Court's impartiality, emphasizing that euthanasia should be a last resort.

Animal AttackDog EuthanasiaSerious Injury DefinitionDisfigurement LawAppellate DivisionNew York State LawChild SafetyEvidence StandardJudicial ImpartialityWorkers' Compensation Law Precedent
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 1984

Aucompaugh v. General Electric

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found a claimant's injury compensable. The claimant was injured attempting a handstand on a swivel chair during a work break. The employer and its carrier argued this constituted horseplay and did not arise out of employment. However, the Board found that physical exercises, including push-ups and chin-ups, were regularly conducted by employees during breaks, and the employer was aware of and permitted these activities. The Board concluded that it is reasonable for young men with physically demanding jobs to engage in some activity during slack periods, and thus the risk was a risk of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the "horseplay" was sufficiently related to employment to make the injury compensable, despite the employer's arguments regarding the isolated nature of the act and the claimant's initial misrepresentation.

Workers' CompensationHorseplayCompensable InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPhysical ExercisesWork BreaksEmployer AwarenessAppellate ReviewAffirmed Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ850378 (OAK 0327145)
Regular
Jul 20, 2009

JUAN C. CAMPOS vs. EXPERT TREE SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant injured while working as a tree climber, who sustained multiple physical injuries and sought compensation for a psychological injury. The defendant contested the psychological injury claim, arguing it didn't meet the "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" exception to the six-month employment rule for such claims. The Board granted reconsideration, reversing the finding of a compensable psychological injury because the event, while sudden, was not extraordinary for the nature of the employment. The case is remanded for a new rating of orthopedic permanent disability.

Labor Code section 3208.3sudden and extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurypermanent disabilityAMA Guidessequelaecompensable consequenceindustrial injuryreconsiderationfindings award and order
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 13,608 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