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

Lechowicz v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Plaintiff, a former railroad worker for defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), commenced an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for monetary damages due to personal injuries, including permanent sensorineural hearing loss, allegedly sustained from excessive noise and vibrations during employment. Conrail moved for summary judgment, arguing the hearing loss claim was time-barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations (45 USC § 56) and other claims for

Federal Employers' Liability ActStatute of LimitationsOccupational DiseaseHearing LossSummary JudgmentAccrual DoctrineRailroad EmploymentPersonal Injury ClaimAppellate DecisionLatent Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anthony v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

This case addresses the liability of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) as an "owner" under Labor Law § 240. The plaintiff, David Anthony, an employee of Richards "Of Course", was injured after falling from a billboard located on Conrail's right-of-way. The billboard had been mistakenly believed to be on Martisco Plumbing Corporation's property, which collected rent for it. The court found no evidence of Conrail's awareness, consent, or benefit from the billboard, nor any control over the work site. Citing precedent, the court determined that Conrail did not have the requisite nexus to the work or the structure to be considered an "owner" under the statute, and therefore dismissed the claims against it.

Labor Law § 240Owner LiabilityConstruction AccidentBillboard FallRight-of-WayTrespasser StatusLease AgreementThird-Party LiabilityPremises LiabilityProperty Ownership Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Briggs v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Plaintiffs, retired railroad workers, sued Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for sensorineural hearing loss and other personal injuries sustained due to long-term noise and vibration exposure during employment. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the hearing loss claims were time-barred and other claims lacked evidentiary support. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing the hearing loss claims as barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations. However, the court improperly dismissed claims for aggravation of injuries within the limitations period, injuries from negligent assignment, and certain other health problems for Briggs and Dineen. The appellate court modified the order, reinstating plaintiffs' claims for aggravation of hearing loss and injuries from negligent assignment, and for other unrelated injuries for Briggs and Dineen, while affirming the dismissal of time-barred hearing loss claims and specific health claims for Briggs and Vipari.

Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA)Statute of LimitationsSensorineural Hearing LossRailroad WorkersOccupational ExposureSummary JudgmentContinuing Tort DoctrineNegligent AssignmentAggravation of InjuriesAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosello v. Long Island Rail Road

John Rosello sued The Long Island Rail Road Company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) after sustaining neck and head injuries while working. A jury awarded him over $1.9 million in damages for pain, suffering, and lost earnings. The defendant filed a post-trial motion for a new trial or remittitur, arguing the awards were excessive and citing pre-existing conditions and the plaintiff's smoking habit. The court denied the defendant's motion, affirming the jury's verdict by comparing the awards to similar FELA cases and crediting the treating physician's testimony that the accident caused the injuries and necessitated two spinal surgeries.

FELANegligencePersonal InjurySpinal InjuryNeck InjuryBackhoe AccidentDamages AwardPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical Expenses
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1987

Madarash v. Long Island Rail Road Co.

Plaintiffs, employees of the Long Island Rail Road Company (LIRR), initially sued LIRR under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for injuries sustained in a 1983 collision. Subsequently, Green Bus Lines, Inc. (Green Bus) was added as a defendant through an amended complaint, following indications that a Green Bus vehicle caused the accident. Green Bus successfully moved to dismiss these claims, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the absence of "serious injuries" under New York's No-Fault Law. However, the court allowed the LIRR to implead Green Bus and for plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint, re-asserting state law claims against Green Bus. Green Bus then moved to dismiss this Second Amended Complaint on grounds of subject matter jurisdiction and the statute of limitations. The court denied both motions, affirming its pendant-party jurisdiction and ruling that the action was timely under New York's savings statute, N.Y.Civ.Prac.Law § 205(a). The court also critically noted Green Bus's significant delay in challenging jurisdiction, suggesting potential sanctions for needlessly incurred jury selection expenses.

FELAPendant JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAmended ComplaintFederal Civil ProcedureNew York LawCourt DelaySanctionsPersonal Injury
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Long Island Rail Road

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) sought a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) to prevent the assignment of its members to a 4 P.M. – 12 A.M. shift. IBEW argued this shift change violated their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and constituted a 'major dispute' under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), requiring judicial intervention. LIRR countered that the dispute was 'minor,' concerning the interpretation of the CBA's Rule 9A, and therefore fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitration board. The court found LIRR's arguments 'arguably justified' and not 'frivolous or obviously insubstantial,' relying on the language of Rule 9A and evidence of past practices. Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, denied IBEW's motions for injunction, and dismissed the complaint.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementShift ChangeInjunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionArbitrationStatus QuoRule 9A
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allied Railing Corp. v. Shopmen's Local Union 455

The plaintiff, Allied Railing Corporation, initiated an action under the Labor Management Relations Act seeking a declaratory judgment against Shopmen’s Local Union # 455. The core of the dispute revolved around the Company's alleged failure to make severance payments following the termination of their collective bargaining agreement on June 30, 1975, and the subsequent cessation of the Company's operations. The Union demanded arbitration, but the Company sought a stay, contending that the duty to arbitrate did not survive the agreement's expiration. The court, referencing established precedent, affirmed that the obligation to arbitrate is purely contractual and does not persist beyond the agreement's term unless explicitly stipulated. Consequently, the court dismissed the Union's cross-petition to compel arbitration and granted the Company's request for a declaration that it had no ongoing obligation to arbitrate such post-termination grievances.

Labour disputeCollective bargainingArbitration agreementSeverance benefitsContract terminationDeclaratory judgment actionLMRA Section 301US Arbitration ActDuty to arbitratePost-expiration rights
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00941 [202 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Locke v. URS Architecture & Eng'g-N.Y., P.C.

Plaintiff Michael Locke sustained injuries after slipping on soapy water in a designated restroom at a construction site managed by URS. Locke had repeatedly notified URS of an overflowing sink causing water to pool, but URS attributed responsibility to prime general contractor Tri-Rail. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on common-law negligence and Labor Law claims against URS, while denying URS's motion to dismiss and for contractual indemnification against Tri-Rail, and denying Crescent's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Crescent and granting URS conditional contractual indemnification against Tri-Rail, pending liability apportionment. The court found URS liable under Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 due to its control over the injury-producing activity and notice of the dangerous condition.

Workers' CompensationConstruction Site AccidentSlip and FallPremises LiabilityLabor Law §200Labor Law §241(6)Industrial Code ViolationSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law Negligence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eschberger v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Plaintiff, a brakeman, sustained a back injury while manually adjusting a misaligned draw-bar at defendant's Frontier Yard. He sued under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) and the Federal Safety Appliance Act (FSAA). The FELA claim was dismissed, but a jury awarded him $5,437,000 under FSAA. On appeal, the defendant challenged liability under FSAA, which the court affirmed, citing precedents where manual manipulation of misaligned drawbars resulted in absolute liability. The court found the jury's verdict, particularly the $4,000,000 awarded for pain and suffering, to be excessive. The judgment was reversed on the issue of damages only, with a new trial granted unless the plaintiff agrees to reduce the verdict to $3,005,000, in which case the judgment would be modified and affirmed.

FELAFSAARailroad InjuryBrakemanMisaligned DrawbarAbsolute LiabilityExcessive VerdictDamages ReductionAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wodowski v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Plaintiff, a locomotive engineer for Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), sustained personal injuries when a Rodeway Inn van, transporting him under contract with Conrail, collided with an automobile driven by Dale Marshall. Plaintiff sued Marshall under New York's No-Fault statute and Conrail and Rodeway under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). The jury found Rodeway and Marshall negligent but awarded no damages, concluding plaintiff suffered no serious injury. The court determined this verdict was against the weight of the evidence, as the jury mistakenly applied the 'serious injury' threshold to all defendants due to improper instructions. Consequently, the judgment was modified to grant a new trial against Conrail and Rodeway Inn, specifically limited to the issue of damages.

NegligencePersonal InjuryFELANo-FaultNew TrialDamagesAgencyRailroad WorkerMotor Vehicle AccidentJury Misconduct
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 90 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