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. 2022 NY Slip Op 05053 [208 AD3d 818]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2022

Thorpe v. One Page Park, LLC

Lorenzo Thorpe, an employee at a construction site owned by One Page Park, LLC, sustained injuries after falling into a 14-16 foot deep pit. He commenced a personal injury action against One Page Park, LLC and A-W Coon & Sons, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. Upon reargument, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against One Page Park, LLC, citing elevation-related risk and triable issues of fact. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Elevation-Related HazardSummary Judgment MotionReargumentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseTriable Issue of FactProperty Owner Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenman v. Page

Plaintiff George H. Greenman sustained injuries after falling from a roof while performing construction work on defendants' property. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was denied, and defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by the Supreme Court, Genesee County. The appellate court modified this order by denying defendants' cross-motion in part, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) causes of action, and granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court concluded that the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) did not apply to defendant John Page, a developer who rehabilitates homes for resale, despite his residence in one of the apartments of the two-family dwelling where the incident occurred. The court clarified that the exemption only extends as far as its language fairly warrants, resolving doubts in favor of the general provision. A dissenting opinion argued that the homeowner exemption should apply due to the mixed residential and commercial use of the dwelling, adhering to the principle that owners contracting work directly related to residential use, even with a commercial purpose, are shielded.

Labor LawHomeowner ExemptionConstruction AccidentRoof FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeveloper LiabilityStatutory InterpretationWorkplace SafetyResidential Property
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08902
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Matter of Daniels v. City of Rochester

Claimant Freddie Daniels sustained a work-related knee injury in 2010. The employer, City of Rochester, sought review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, submitting a 10-page brief exceeding the eight-page limit set by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1) (i). The Workers' Compensation Board denied the employer's application for review due to non-compliance with the page limit. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's amended decision, finding that the regulation was unreasonable in outright rejecting an oversized brief without a clear standard for explanation or a safety valve for filing lengthier briefs, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ProcedurePage LimitsAdministrative ReviewBoard RulesArbitrary and CapriciousRegulation InterpretationRemittalLegal BriefsCourt Rules
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2004

Foote v. Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership

Glenn A. Foote, Jr., an employee, sustained injuries when a wood chip stacker collapsed at the Lyonsdale Cogeneration Facility. He and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 against the facility owners (Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership and Moose River Energy, Inc.), the stacker designer (American Bin & Conveyor), and the procurer (Wolf & Associates). The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment to Lyonsdale and Wolf, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Lyonsdale and the negligence claim against Wolf. On cross-appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the injury resulted from the structure's collapse rather than the failure of a safety device. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claim against Wolf due to the absence of a duty to the plaintiff, and found a question of fact existed regarding Lyonsdale's supervisory control, thus denying summary judgment to Lyonsdale on other claims.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceElevated Work SiteScaffold LawWood Chip StackerDesign DefectSupervisory ControlContractual Obligation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership

Jose Verdugo, a food service deliveryman, was injured in December 2003 and received workers' compensation benefits. He also initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) later determined that Verdugo's disability ended on January 24, 2006, leading to the termination of his benefits. Subsequently, the defendants in the personal injury action sought to preclude Verdugo from relitigating the duration of his disability, arguing collateral estoppel based on the WCB's finding. The court, affirming the WCB's decision, reversed the Appellate Division's order, granting the defendants' motion to preclude further litigation on disability beyond the WCB's determined date, finding the issue was fully and fairly litigated.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPersonal Injury ActionCollateral EstoppelAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardDisability DurationMedical TreatmentLost EarningsMedical ExpensesGuardianship Proceeding
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Page v. Liberty Central School District

Claimant Angela Page received workers' compensation benefits starting in 2004 for hypersensitivity to fungi, later including multiple chemical sensitivity. In 2012, the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) reversed a finding of permanent total disability, concluding no continuing causally-related disability based on an impartial specialist's opinion. After subsequent attempts by claimant to address her disability status were rejected by the WCB, claimant appealed. This appeal concerns a 2014 evaluation by physician Jeffrey Newton, who diagnosed claimant with consequential adjustment disorder related to her work-place originating condition. The WCLJ found prima facie evidence for consequential depression, but the Board reversed, citing its 2012 decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the 2012 decision regarding no current causally-related disability does not preclude a claim for consequential psychological injury related to prior established conditions. The matter was remitted to the WCB for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealCausally-Related DisabilityMultiple Chemical SensitivityHypersensitivity ReactionConsequential Psychological InjuryAdjustment DisorderAbuse of DiscretionRemandIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Workers' Compensation Board Reversal
References
6
Case No. 529776
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Page v. Liberty Cent. Sch. Dist.

Angela Page, who received workers' compensation for occupational mold exposure and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), sought benefits for a consequential psychological injury. Following a 2012 Board decision that she had no further causally-related physical disability, a WCLJ and the Board later precluded her psychiatrist's (Dr. Newton) reports and testimony regarding her adjustment disorder, citing noncompliance with IME regulations. They also found no compensable lost time. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling the employer's objection to Dr. Newton's evidence was untimely. It further found the Board's conclusion of no disability was not supported by substantial evidence, given that both claimant's and the employer's psychiatrists agreed on the psychological diagnosis, differing only on the degree of disability. The case was remitted for further proceedings.

Occupational ExposureToxic MoldHypersensitivity ReactionMultiple Chemical SensitivityConsequential Psychological InjuryAdjustment DisorderPsychiatric DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationEvidence PreclusionTimeliness of Objection
References
6
Case No. ADJ7114025
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

KATHLEEN KENNEDY vs. COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL, INTERCARE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a case where defense counsel filed a petition exceeding the 31-page limit. Although the Board initially considered sanctions, it ultimately decided against imposing them. However, the Board strongly admonished defense counsel to adhere to page limit regulations in future filings. Consequently, no sanctions were imposed on the defendant or their counsel for the oversized petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationCalifornia Code of RegulationsTitle 8Section 10845(a)Page LimitsAdmonishmentDefendant Counsel
References
0
Case No. ADJ2645988
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

BRIAN PAGE vs. DREAM TEX CORPORATION, CAL. COMP. in liquidation by CIGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Brian Page's petition for reconsideration of the original decision. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found that Dr. Delamarter's reports were limited to a second opinion on surgery, not all issues, rendering his temporary disability opinions unsubstantial. The judge also upheld the defendant's entitlement to a $67,639 third-party credit from the applicant's civil settlement, finding no employer negligence proximately caused the injury. The Board found no basis for the applicant's claims of excess power or that the evidence did not justify the findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBrian PageDream Tex CorporationCal CompCIGAADJ2645988Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOpinion on Decision
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,976 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