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

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Chirino v. Sanitary Controls, Inc.

This case concerns appeals from Workers’ Compensation Board decisions that upheld the State Insurance Fund's cancellation of a workers’ compensation policy for Sanitary Controls, Inc. due to nonpayment. The Fund sent a cancellation notice on November 23, 1976, effective December 11, 1976. Sanitary received it eight days before the effective date. Concurrently, Sanitary filed for bankruptcy, and a court order stayed proceedings against it but did not explicitly stop the policy cancellation. The appeals court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that service of cancellation is effective upon mailing, not receipt, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 54, subd 5, and that the bankruptcy filing did not negate Sanitary’s insurance obligations.

Policy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumBankruptcy LawService of NoticeInsurance LiabilityAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationEmployer ObligationsInsurer ObligationsBoard Decisions
References
4
Case No. 034765412M
Regular Panel Decision

McAtee v. Environmental Control Board of the Department of Environmental Protection

The petitioner, Darin E McAtee, sought to annul a New York City Environmental Control Board (ECB) determination that found him in violation of Administrative Code § 28-404.1 and imposed a $4,800 fine. The violation stemmed from a window washing company hired by McAtee, whose worker lacked a rigger's license. McAtee argued that the Administrative Code section was vague as applied to nonsupervisory homeowners and that New York Labor Law preempted local laws regarding window washers. The court found that the ECB's interpretation of the statute had no rational basis, as the code's language did not apply to homeowners who neither hoisted nor supervised the work. Consequently, the court granted McAtee's petition, annulled the ECB's determination, and dismissed the notice of violation.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationHomeowner LiabilityBuilding CodesRigger LicenseDue ProcessPreemptionNew York City
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Control Network Communications, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Plaintiff Control Network Communications, Inc. (CNC) initiated an action against defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 236, alleging breach of contract and fraud under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). CNC contended that Local 236 violated a 'most favored nations' clause in their collective bargaining agreement by offering more favorable terms to another employer, Adirondack Cabling. CNC's grievance was ultimately denied by the Labor Management Committee (LMC). The court granted Local 236's motion to dismiss, finding the LMC's decision on the breach of contract claim to be final and binding due to CNC's failure to timely petition for vacation. Additionally, the court ruled that CNC's fraud claim was preempted by the LMRA, as its resolution required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Breach of contractFraud claimLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Most favored nations clauseCollective bargaining agreement (CBA)Grievance procedureMotion to dismissFederal preemptionLabor Management Committee (LMC)Final and binding determination
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02281
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2019

Matter of Whiting-Turner Contr. Co. v. Environmental Control Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed a determination by the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York, which found Whiting-Turner Contracting Company in violation of New York City Building Code § BC 3301.2 and imposed a penalty of $2,400. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that Whiting-Turner was the general contractor and thus responsible for safety measures at a mall construction site, where a worker was injured. The court also upheld the Board's limitation of administrative appellate review to the record established before the hearing officer, as petitioner failed to show good cause for admitting new records after the hearing.

Building Code ViolationGeneral Contractor LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyAdministrative ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate DivisionEnvironmental Control BoardWork PermitSubstantial EvidenceRecord Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Rivera v. Apple Industrial Corp.

Plaintiff Alfredo Rivera, a security guard, sued his former employers Apple Industrial Corporation and Effective Security Systems, Inc., alleging discrimination and wrongful discharge under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to his diabetes and poor eyesight. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court found that Rivera failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as he could not prove his impairments constituted a "disability" under the ADA while employed, particularly because his conditions were controlled by medication and he conceded his eyesight was sufficient for his job. Furthermore, even if disabled, Rivera did not show he was denied reasonable accommodation or discharged due to his disability; rather, defendants provided evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his termination based on unsatisfactory job performance. The Court also rejected Rivera's claims of retaliation and hostile work environment, noting the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough and that his supervisors had, at times, assisted him. Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed.

ADA DiscriminationDisability RightsEmployment LawSummary Judgment StandardDiabetic ImpairmentVision ImpairmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimJob Performance IssuesReasonable Accommodation
References
45
Case No. ADJ2590975 (STK 0190237)
Regular
Sep 12, 2011

RAFAEL DELEON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR, MULE CREEK PRISON, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed a prior award granting medical treatment for applicant's diabetes. Despite the defendant's argument that diabetes treatment was for a non-industrial condition, the Board found it necessary to prevent worsening of the applicant's industrially caused heart disease. Medical evaluators concluded that controlling diabetes is an essential component of treating industrial heart conditions, making the treatment compensable. The decision hinges on the principle that treatment for non-industrial conditions is covered when essential to cure or relieve the effects of an industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryHeart ConditionDiabetesGastrointestinal DifficultiesAgreed Medical EvaluatorTreating PhysicianCardiologistMedical TreatmentLabor Code Section 4600
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ibarra v. Equipment Control, Inc.

Roman Ibarra, an employee of Atlantic Waste Disposal, Inc., was injured by a bailing machine and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He then commenced a negligence and product liability action against the manufacturer, Equipment Control, Inc. Equipment Control, Inc. initiated a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Atlantic and Empire State Recycling Corporation. Atlantic moved for summary judgment, asserting that the 1996 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 restricted its liability for contribution to cases involving a 'grave injury,' which it argued Ibarra had not sustained. The Supreme Court denied Atlantic's motion, but the appellate court reversed, finding the amended statute applicable, placing the burden of proving 'grave injury' on the third party, and concluding that Ibarra's loss of vision in one eye did not meet the statutory definition of a 'grave injury.' Consequently, all claims and cross claims against Atlantic were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LawContribution and IndemnificationGrave InjuryStatutory InterpretationProspective ApplicationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party ClaimsEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2012

Claim of Laduke v. Schenectady Community Action Program

The Workers' Compensation Board initially found a self-insured employer entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, citing the claimant's preexisting diabetes and obesity. The Special Disability Fund appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the employer failed to demonstrate the claimant's preexisting conditions hindered her job potential as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). The court noted the claimant's diabetes was controlled by medication and had not affected her work ability prior to the injury. Furthermore, her obesity lacked a medical basis that would establish it as a permanent hindering condition, leading the court to conclude the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15(8)(d)Special Disability FundReimbursement claimPreexisting medical conditionPermanent impairmentDiabetesObesityJob hindranceMedical opinionAppellate Division
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vision Environmental Services Corp. v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection

The Appellate Division confirmed a determination by the Environmental Control Board, which found petitioners (an owner and a contractor) in violation of city asbestos regulations. The violations included failure to ensure workers wore protective gloves, maintain a proper ground-fault interrupter, provide adequate shower heads in the decontamination room, and ensure the shift supervisor wore proper protective clothing. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination, and affirmed that the owner was liable for the contractor's violations. The petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 was denied and dismissed.

Asbestos RegulationsEnvironmental ViolationsWorker SafetyProtective EquipmentOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityAdministrative ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingSubstantial EvidenceNew York City
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,735 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