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. ADJ484574 (ANA 0392117)
Regular
Apr 12, 2010

HECTOR ROMAN vs. D L BONE & SONS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The defendant seeks reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that awarded psychiatric injury benefits to an applicant injured within six months of employment. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further proceedings. The core issue is whether the applicant's fall due to a rotted beam, while employed less than six months, constitutes a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" for psychiatric injury. The Board found the fall, though sudden, was not sufficiently extraordinary given the applicant's role as a painter regularly working at heights, thus likely precluding psychiatric benefits under Labor Code § 3208.3(d).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurybilateral wristsneckbackpsychiatric injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentfurther medical treatmentLabor Code section 3208.3(d)
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03852 [161 AD3d 1183]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Munzon v. Victor at Fifth, LLC

Juan P. Munzon, a laborer, was injured during demolition work when he fell from a wooden beam after detaching his safety harness to help a coworker move a heavy metal beam. The metal beam struck the wooden beam, causing Munzon to fall from the fourth to the third floor. Munzon sued Victor at Fifth, LLC, and a general contractor/construction manager, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to Munzon on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. A jury subsequently awarded Munzon damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that Munzon established a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to inadequate safety equipment, and found that the jury's awards for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses were reasonable and did not materially deviate from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryLabor Law ViolationElevated Work SiteSummary JudgmentLiabilityDamages AwardPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesAppellate ReviewConstruction Accident
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeGabriel v. Strong Place Realty, LLC

This case concerns motions for reargument and renewal following a workplace accident. Plaintiff Cesar DeGabriel was injured when an I beam fell on his leg at a construction site. Plaintiff sued defendants Rockledge Scaffold Corp., Strongrew Realty, LLC, and Strong Place Realty, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). Defendant Rockledge moved to reargue the partial denial of its summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Plaintiff cross-moved to reargue and renew the dismissal of his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and the court's finding regarding Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2). The court denied Rockledge's motion, finding issues of fact regarding negligent stacking of I beams under Labor Law § 200. The court also denied plaintiff's motions, ruling that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the I beam was stationary, and Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) did not apply, suggesting § 23-2.1 was more relevant. Both the defendant's and plaintiff's motions were ultimately denied.

Workplace accidentLabor Law claimsSummary judgment motionReargumentRenewal motionFalling object injuryConstruction site safetyCommon-law negligenceIndustrial Code violationsPremises liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2006

Cruz v. Neil Hospitality, LLC

An iron worker, referred to as the plaintiff, suffered personal injuries while moving an an 800-pound steel beam on a construction site for Neil Hospitality, LLC. His left leg was crushed when the beam slid back down a dirt mound. The plaintiff sued under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing his claims. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court finding no elevation-related hazard under Labor Law § 240 (1) and deeming 12 NYCRR 23-2.3 (c) inapplicable to the circumstances.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentElevation-Related HazardSteel Beam InjuryWorksite SafetyNew York Labor Law 24012 NYCRR 23-2.3(c) Inapplicability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Comes v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Plaintiff Lynn L. Comes, a laborer employed by William H. Lane, Inc., sustained a back injury while moving a steel I-beam on the defendant's property. He and his wife initiated an action against the property owner, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to this appeal. The appellate court found the defendant not liable, determining there was no evidence of supervisory control or notice under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200, and no specific implementing regulation under Labor Law § 241 (6) for moving I-beams. Consequently, the order denying summary judgment was reversed, and the complaint dismissed.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawNegligenceConstruction AccidentPersonal InjurySupervisory ControlProperty Owner LiabilityAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mentesana v. Bernard Janowitz Construction Corp.

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained when an I-beam fell on his finger at a construction site. He sued Beauce Atlas, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and § 200. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later, upon reargument, granted the defendant's motion to dismiss this specific cause of action. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court finding triable issues of fact concerning the height of the falling I-beams and the availability and instruction of safety devices. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was denied.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor Law Section 240(1)Summary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardWorker SafetyTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReversalWorkplace Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2011

Fernandez v. BBD Developers, LLC

In this case, an employee of subcontractor Casino Development was performing demolition work at a construction site in Manhattan when he fell approximately 14 feet. The plaintiff, directed to cut and drop 500-pound steel beams while standing on a narrow exterior wall, was provided with a safety belt and rope by his supervisor, who also helped fasten it. However, the rope's length was not measured, and it was struck by a falling beam, causing the plaintiff to be pulled off the wall. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Court reversed this decision, granting the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries, as he followed supervisory instructions and was not provided with adequate safety measures or training.

Construction SafetyLabor Law 240(1)Scaffolding LawFall ProtectionDemolitionSupervisor NegligenceWorker InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hawkins v. City of New York

A plaintiff construction worker was injured while pulling steel beams without proper safety devices, leading to a fall. The IAS Court initially dismissed claims based on Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, modified this decision, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, recognizing the unsecured beam at an elevated height as a special hazard. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding the relied-upon regulations (12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (a), (c) (1), 23-6.1, 23-6.2) to be either insufficiently specific or inapplicable to the plaintiff's situation, particularly since he was not using a hoist.

Construction Worker InjuryLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Elevation HazardGravity AccidentSummary JudgmentSafety DevicesWorkplace AccidentAppellate ReviewNew York Regulations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agriculture Ins. Co., Inc. v. Ace Hardware Corp.

Plaintiff Agricultural Insurance Company, Inc., as assignee of injured worker Robert T. Treadway, Jr., moved for partial summary judgment on liability under N.Y. Labor Law § 240(1) against defendants Ace Hardware Corporation and Butler Construction Company. Treadway was severely injured when he fell from an elevated height at a construction site after the steel beam he was standing on collapsed. Although provided with a safety harness and line, these were attached to the very beam that failed, rendering them inadequate. The court granted the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the defendants violated § 240(1) by failing to provide proper protection and that this failure was the proximate cause of Treadway's injuries. The court rejected arguments regarding the admissibility of an accident report, a superceding cause (wind), and Treadway's contributory negligence.

N.Y. Labor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityConstruction AccidentElevated WorkSafety DevicesProximate CauseContributory NegligenceHearsay ExceptionParty Admission
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cordeiro v. Shalco Investments

Fabio Cordeiro was injured when he fell from an elevated steel beam during a garage renovation project. He claimed the defendant, Hicksville Paving, Inc., failed to provide adequate safety devices, violating Labor Law § 240 (1). Hicksville contended that Cordeiro was provided with safety equipment and that his fall resulted from a voluntary detour for a non-work-related purpose (walking on the beam as a shortcut). Hicksville also raised an issue of fact regarding Cordeiro's employment status, suggesting he might have been their employee or a special employee, which would invoke the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to his claims. The court found that Hicksville raised triable issues of fact concerning both the proximate cause of the fall under Labor Law § 240 (1) and whether Cordeiro was an employee of Hicksville, concluding that summary judgment should have been denied to the plaintiff.

construction accidentfall from heightLabor Law 240(1)summary judgmentproximate causeworkers' compensationspecial employeeelevated worksafety devicesappellate review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 99 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