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. 2024 NY Slip Op 01782 [226 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2024

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff Arlender Nunez successfully moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendant SY Prospect LLC. Plaintiff fell from an unsecured ladder while performing work, asserting SY Prospect LLC failed to provide necessary safety devices. The court found plaintiff established a prima facie case that his injuries were proximately caused by a Labor Law violation. Defendants failed to present evidence to rebut this or to support a 'recalcitrant worker defense'. The Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.

Ladder FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseConstruction AccidentUnsecured LadderBuilding Owner LiabilityAppellate Affirmation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Plaintiff Luis Reynoso, an employee, sustained injuries when an interior staircase collapsed during demolition work at a building owned by defendant Prospect Associates, L.P. and for which defendant Flintlock Construction, Inc. was the general contractor. Reynoso filed suit under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices. Defendants disputed whether Reynoso was authorized to be in the building and the nature of the work he was performing, as demolition was not officially scheduled. The Supreme Court denied both plaintiffs' and defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, finding significant factual disputes. The appellate court affirmed this denial, emphasizing that issues regarding plaintiff's authorization and the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1) to the staircase must be resolved at trial.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentStaircase CollapseDemolition Work InjuryWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityAuthorization DisputeFactual DisputesAppellate AffirmationConstruction Accident
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00832 [125 AD3d 435]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2015

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves an appeal regarding a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction aimed at halting work and public financing for a project until a further environmental review is conducted. Petitioners, including Prospect Park East Network, sought to annul a negative declaration of environmental impact issued by the New York State Housing Finance Agency (HFA). The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that HFA properly identified and thoroughly reviewed environmental concerns, providing a reasoned basis for its determination of no significant adverse environmental impacts. The court also found that any misclassification of the project as a Type I action was a harmless error since the appropriate review procedures were followed. Additionally, the court noted that HFA's financing impact was slight because the project could proceed without its funding.

Environmental ReviewPreliminary InjunctionNegative DeclarationHousing Finance AgencySEQRAType I ActionHarmless ErrorAppellate DivisionArticle 78Urban Development
References
7
Case No. 2017-04-0074
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2017

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Ms. Adamczyk, a caregiver for Prospect, Inc., sought workers' compensation for a mid-back injury sustained on January 23, 2017, while working at a client's cluttered home. Despite conflicting accounts regarding the incident and delayed reporting, the Court found Ms. Adamczyk likely to prevail on the merits, establishing that her injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. The Court granted her request for medical benefits, ordering Prospect to cover past and future reasonable medical treatment, including an orthopedic referral. However, her request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient evidence of duration, though she may request them later. The Court also referred the matter to the Compliance unit for potential penalties due to Prospect's failure to provide crucial medical records during mediation.

Medical BenefitsExpedited HearingMid-Back InjuryThoracic Back StrainCausationPre-existing ConditionEmployee TestimonyEmployer InvestigationMedical Records DisputeCompliance Referral
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Robert Allsup sued Exxon Corporation for tortious interference with his lifetime employment contract with King Ranch and with a prospective employment relationship with Don Brock, Distributor (DBD). Allsup, a gate guard since 1961 with a verbal lifetime employment agreement, was effectively managed by Exxon and its subcontractors from 1976. In 1988, Exxon awarded the gate guard contract to DBD, who, under Exxon's influence and based on prior complaints from Exxon personnel, refused to hire Allsup. The jury found Exxon tortiously interfered with Allsup's contract and awarded damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of tortious interference and associated damages, including exemplary damages, but reversed the finding regarding negligent handling of employment relationship as it constitutes an intentional tort.

Tortious InterferenceContractual RelationshipProspective EmploymentLifetime ContractActual MalicePunitive DamagesJury VerdictTexas Appellate CourtEmployer InterferenceAffirmative Defense
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case concerns a dispute between an insurance agency, Baty & Associates Insurance Agency, Inc. (BAI), and its shareholder Rick D. Baty, against former officers Connie Suzanne Malliaros and Treva C. Neill, their new company ProTech Insurance Agency, and four insurance companies: Aetna, Hartford, AMS, and Fidelity. The appellants alleged breach of fiduciary duties, wrongful diversion of business, tortious interference with contracts and prospective business relationships, and civil conspiracy. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's summary judgments, which were largely in favor of the defendants. The court reversed the summary judgment regarding tort claims against Malliaros, Neill, and ProTech, and for Hartford on tortious interference with prospective business relationships, remanding these for further proceedings. However, it affirmed the summary judgments for the other insurance companies on tortious interference with prospective business relationships, and for all insurance companies on claims of tortious interference with existing contracts, inducing breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy, clarifying that the prior settlement and rescission agreement did not release the tort claims.

Insurance LawFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceContract LawCivil ConspiracyRescissionRehearing OpinionEmployment RelationshipBusiness Disparagement
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Supreme Court properly denied third-party defendant Ferro Corporation's motion to amend its answer and for summary judgment. Ferro Corporation sought to assert a defense based on a recent amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the amendment, effective September 10, 1996, applies prospectively only and therefore does not apply to actions pending on that date. The court cited several cases to support its interpretation of the amendment's prospective application.

Workers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationThird-Party ComplaintMotion to Amend AnswerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewErie CountyWorkers' Compensation Law Section 11Prospective Application
References
4
Case No. M2003-00629-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2004

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This is a child support modification appeal where Linda C. Gorrell sought to modify a settlement agreement with Tyree B. Harris, IV. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the private agreement was void as against public policy, modifying the trial court's decision. It ruled that child support, both prospective and retroactive, must conform to Tennessee Child Support Guidelines, reversing the trial court on retroactive support calculation. The court also mandated an upward deviation for prospective support due to the father's lack of visitation, despite the mother's antagonistic conduct, but denied retroactive upward deviation. The case was remanded for recalculation and determination of attorney fees.

Child SupportModificationPaternitySettlement AgreementVoid ContractPublic PolicyTennessee Child Support GuidelinesRetroactive SupportProspective SupportUpward Deviation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1994

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree. The judgment was affirmed. The trial court correctly determined that the People made a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination by the defense in its use of peremptory challenges to exclude white, male prospective jurors. While the defense offered facially neutral explanations, the People successfully demonstrated that one explanation was pretextual under the Batson analysis, concerning a white-collar worker's inability to 'identify' with the defendant. Consequently, the court correctly denied the defendant's challenge to that prospective juror and seated him.

Peremptory ChallengesJury SelectionBatson ChallengeRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationCriminal Possession of Stolen PropertyUnauthorized Use of VehicleAppellate ReviewPretextual ExplanationsPrima Facie Showing
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The appeal concerned the prosecutor's peremptory challenges during jury selection. The trial court found a pattern of intentional discrimination against black prospective jurors, specifically noting the prosecutor's inability to provide a race-neutral reason for one challenge and finding another pretextual. The appellate court focused on the prosecutor's challenge of a prospective juror based solely on his employment as a postal worker, ruling that such a reason must relate to the case facts or the juror's qualifications. Finding this explanation pretextual, the appellate court reversed the defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial.

Jury SelectionPeremptory ChallengeBatson ChallengeRace-Neutral ReasonEmployment-Based ChallengePretextual ExplanationRacial DiscriminationCriminal Possession of a WeaponNew TrialAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 202 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