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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06751
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

All State Flooring Distributors, L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC

Plaintiff, All State Flooring Distributors, L.P., initiated legal action against MD Floors, LLC, and Michael Savino to recover $48,188.50 for wood flooring delivered. MD Floors, in turn, filed counterclaims asserting that it incurred additional labor costs due to faulty flooring and was subjected to double-billing. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing both a procedural default and the presence of triable issues of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, while correcting the Supreme Court's finding of a procedural default. The Appellate Division concurred that substantial triable issues of fact existed regarding partial payments, attorney's fees, and the alleged personal guaranty by Savino, and also affirmed the existence of triable issues concerning MD Floors' counterclaims for additional labor costs and double-billing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal GuarantyCounterclaimsProcedural DefaultAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactAttorney's FeesCommercial LawContract Dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piazza v. Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority (BMHA), sustained injuries after falling through a hole in an apartment floor while removing trash. BMHA had contracted Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc., operating as Spectra Contract Flooring, for flooring work, who in turn subcontracted Gregory Simmons, doing business as Simmons Flooring and Remodeling. After the kitchen floor was noted as "spongy," Simmons cut out portions, creating the hole. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. However, the appellate court modified this by denying those parts of the motions and reinstating the claims, finding defendants failed to establish they did not supervise the work, control the premises, or create/have notice of the dangerous condition. Conversely, the court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, ruling that the plaintiff's trash removal duties were not connected to construction activities as defined by that statute. The order was thus modified and affirmed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewSubcontractor Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dunn v. Landmark Flooring Concepts, Inc.

Decedent, a floor covering mechanic, died of a heart attack while working on a renovation project. His widow filed a death benefit claim, which was controverted by Landmark Flooring Concepts, Inc. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an employer-employee relationship and causal link to employment, dismissing the special employment issue as untimely. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. Landmark appealed, arguing it was improperly denied the opportunity to develop the record on special employment. The appellate court found the request timely and that the record contained evidence supporting a special employment claim. The decision was reversed, and the matter remitted to the Board for further development of the record on the issue of special employment.

Special EmploymentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCausal RelationshipHeart AttackAppellate ReviewRemittalProcedural ErrorFactual DisputeSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of Motion
References
6
Case No. ADJ4416816 (AHM 0140718); ADJ3554653 (AHM 014719)
Regular
Sep 22, 2010

MARK ROGERS vs. ALL ABOUT FLOORS, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES A.K.A WESTERN FLOORING INSTALLATIONS, PSI

This case involves Mark Rogers' claim for workers' compensation benefits for back injuries sustained while employed by All About Floors, Inc. and Barrett Business Services. The applicant alleged cumulative trauma injury, but medical evidence from Dr. Einbund was inconsistent. Despite Dr. Einbund's initial uncertainty and later inability to state with reasonable medical certainty that a cumulative trauma injury occurred, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's testimony credible and supported by medical reports, thus deeming the medical opinion substantial evidence to uphold the findings of fact.

WCABReconsideration DeniedPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryMedical EvidenceCausation of InjuryDeposition TestimonyApplicant TestimonyJob DutiesSubstantial Medical Evidence
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07971
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2018

Lucheux v. William Macklowe Co. LLC

In this slip and fall action, plaintiff Angelena Lucheux appealed an order denying her motion for sanctions against defendant Elite Terrazzo Flooring, Inc. Elite had cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that another defendant's cleanup activities constituted an intervening cause, breaking the causal connection between Elite's work and the dusty floor condition on which plaintiff slipped. Plaintiff contended Elite's motion was frivolous and sought its withdrawal, which Elite refused. The motion court, exercising its discretion, determined that Elite's cross-motion was not frivolous, despite being unpersuasive on the merits, and thus denied sanctions. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Slip and FallSanctionsFrivolous MotionSummary JudgmentIntervening CauseCausal ConnectionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionCivil ProcedurePersonal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barre v. Roofing & Flooring, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a consequential injury claim. The claimant, a roofer, suffered a compensable accident in 1966. In 1976, while working as an independent contractor to facilitate a lump-sum settlement for his earlier injury, he sustained a second severe injury due to a fall. Initially, a referee disallowed the claim that the 1966 injury contributed to the 1976 accident. However, the Board reversed this, finding, based on Dr. Flood's testimony about the claimant's dizzy spells, that the second injury was causally related and consequential to the first. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of a consequential injury.

Workers' Compensation LawConsequential InjuryCausationMedical TestimonyDizzy SpellsLump-Sum SettlementIndependent ContractorBoard ReversalAppellate AffirmationRoofer Accident
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2005

Duffy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Floor Management, Inc. for personal injuries from a slip and fall on a wet floor inside a Wal-Mart store. Floor Management, a subcontractor for floor cleaning, moved for summary judgment, arguing it had subcontracted its responsibilities to Crystal Clear Nationwide Management and was not actively involved. Wal-Mart cross-moved for contractual indemnification from Floor Management. The Supreme Court denied Floor Management’s motion and partially granted Wal-Mart’s cross-motion, requiring Floor Management to defend Wal-Mart. On cross appeals, the appellate court modified the order, granting Floor Management's motion for summary judgment, finding no liability to plaintiff. The court also granted Wal-Mart's motion for indemnification from Floor Management, applying Arkansas law as per a choice of law provision, and found Floor Management entitled to indemnification from Crystal Clear Nationwide Management.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityIndependent ContractorChoice of LawArkansas LawNegligenceAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freitas v. GYPSUM FLOORS OF NEW YORK, INC.

Marli Freitas sued Gypsum Floors of New York, Inc. and Richard W. Phillips for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged intentional discrimination, disparate treatment based on her Brazilian national origin, a hostile work environment due to comments about her accent, and retaliation for opposing the discrimination. Defendants denied the claims, asserting performance issues and claiming Freitas took a voluntary leave. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the reasons for Freitas' termination and whether she was actually fired.

DiscriminationNational OriginHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal CourtNew York Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ7144907
Regular
Jun 26, 2012

OSVALDO BERNAL vs. NATIONAL CITY FLOOR COVERINGS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This order denies Osvaldo Bernal's petition for reconsideration in his workers' compensation case against National City Floor Coverings and Insurance Company of the West. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the administrative law judge's report and recommendations, finding no basis to overturn the original decision. Consequently, the Board officially denied reconsideration of the matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNational City Floor CoveringsInsurance Company of the WestADJ7144907Order Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge ReportApplicantDefendantRonnie G. Caplane
References
0
Case No. 19094/2012
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2012

5 Brothers, Inc. v. D.C.M. of New York, LLC

This case involves a dispute between a general contractor, D.C.M. of New York, LLC (DCM), and a subcontractor, Vintage Flooring & Tile Inc. (Vintage), stemming from a construction project for a Best Buy store. The parties had an arbitration agreement, and an arbitrator awarded Vintage $76,539.13. DCM moved to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it was irrational, against public policy, and indefinite, partly due to an alleged willfully exaggerated mechanic's lien by Vintage. Separately, Vintage moved to confirm the award. The court denied DCM's motion to vacate the award, finding that DCM failed to demonstrate the award was irrational or indefinite, and confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Vintage. The court also denied DCM's motion for summary judgment on its lien exaggeration claim, stating that the arbitration implicitly rejected the exaggeration claim by finding Vintage's claim meritorious.

Arbitration AwardVacaturConfirmationSubcontractor DisputeGeneral ContractorMechanic's LienLien ExaggerationPublic PolicyIrrational AwardIndefinite Award
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 248 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