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
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. ADJ9509417
Regular
Apr 05, 2023

ELIZABETH ARBOGAST vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an award for further medical treatment and attorney fees for an applicant diagnosed with ovarian cancer, hernia, peripheral neuropathy, and colon issues sustained during her employment with the California Highway Patrol. The Board found the applicant's ovarian cancer to be an insidious and progressive disease, warranting a reservation of jurisdiction over permanent disability. This reservation allows for future determination of permanent disability if the condition worsens or recurs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway Patrolmedically uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundAdjudication NumberOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and Awardworker's compensation administrative law judgeovarian cancerhernia
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Valenti v. Penn Plax Plastics

The claimant, exposed to asbestos between 1965 and 1972, developed asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and lung cancer. His 1995 workers' compensation claim was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, which found his lung cancer causally related to asbestos exposure occurring before July 1, 1974, thus falling under the 'dust disease' rule requiring total disability for compensation. The claimant appealed, arguing lung cancer is not a dust disease. The appellate court reversed and remitted the decision, clarifying that while lung cancer itself is not a dust disease, the pre-1974 restriction applies if it's causally related to a dust disease like asbestosis. The court noted the Board failed to make a specific finding on this causal link.

asbestos exposurelung cancerasbestosisworkers' compensationdust diseasetotal disabilitypartial disabilitycausationremittalappellate review
References
9
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01671 [225 AD3d 536]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2024

Carranza v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order concerning a construction accident where plaintiff Delis Vasquez Carranza was injured by a falling 150-pound panel in an elevator shaft. The Appellate Division granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that the injury resulted from a falling object that should have been secured by a safety device. Concurrently, it affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against defendant Turner Construction Company. The court concluded that these claims were properly dismissed because the accident stemmed from the means and methods of the work, which were directed and controlled by the plaintiff's employer, and the general contractor's general supervisory powers were insufficient to establish liability for such claims.

Labor Law 240(1)Falling Object InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Division DecisionGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityEmployer ControlWorkplace Safety ViolationsElevator Shaft IncidentNegligence Dismissal
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06210
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Tisselin v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Plaintiff Frisner Tisselin, a project manager, sustained injuries at a construction site when a roof access ladder detached from a personnel hoist and struck him. The ladder's attachment failed due to a broken weld on a washer. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and largely granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding the hoist inadequate for its safety purpose and the ladder an essential component. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Memorial Hospital and Turner Construction due to a lack of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Safeway Atlantic, LLC's motion to dismiss the common-law negligence claim, citing an issue of fact regarding negligent installation and inspection of the hoists.

Construction site injuryPersonnel hoist accidentLadder detachmentLabor Law § 240 (1) liabilityLabor Law § 200 dismissalCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentAppellate DivisionSafety device inadequacyElevation-related hazard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nembhard v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Plaintiff Inez Nembhard sued Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center for age and race discrimination. A jury found for Nembhard on age discrimination, awarding $110,000 back pay, and found for Memorial on race discrimination. Memorial moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, alleging insufficient evidence, but the court denied these motions. The court found sufficient evidence of pretext, disproportionate punishment, and overtly discriminatory statements supporting the age discrimination verdict. Nembhard's motion for attorney fees and costs was granted, awarding her $100,893.75 in fees and $6,880.64 in costs.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsAttorney Fees and CostsBack Pay AwardLiquidated DamagesPretextual FiringWillful DiscriminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2007

Cohen v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Edward Cohen, an electrical subcontractor, was injured while installing metal racks in a ceiling at defendant Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where HRH Construction was the construction manager. He fell from a six-foot A-frame ladder because a metal rod protruded, blocking the first rung and forcing him to step directly from the second rung to the floor, where his left foot got caught, twisting his knee. The court found that the provided ladder, though not inherently defective, was inadequate for the specific task location as it did not allow for safe descent, violating Labor Law § 240 (1). The court held that defendants had an obligation to provide a safety device appropriate to the task, and the provided ladder was insufficient to permit safe performance of the elevated task at that particular part of the work site. The motion court's denial of summary judgment for the plaintiffs on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was overturned, and their cross-motion for summary judgment was granted. The dismissal of the cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationLadder SafetyElevation RiskAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstruction SiteSafety DevicesNegligenceProximate CauseLabor Law 240(1)
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2001

Claim of Caiazza v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The claimant, a former machinist, developed skin cancer in 1990 and later lung and brain cancers in 2000, attributed to occupational exposure. Following his retirement in 2001, the employer conceded the lung and brain cancers were consequential to the initial skin cancer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant permanently totally disabled and awarded weekly benefits of $300, based on the original skin cancer disablement date of February 27, 1986. The claimant sought Workers' Compensation Board review, arguing for an April 24, 2000 disablement date (diagnosis of lung/brain cancers) to receive higher benefits of $400/week. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, citing the claimant's prior stipulation to modify the original claim for consequential injuries and established law that such awards are measured by rates at the time of the original injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it was not unreasonable to rely on the claimant's agreement and that the award rate was supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDate of DisablementBenefit Rate CalculationConsequential InjurySkin CancerLung CancerBrain CancerPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 218 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