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. ADJ9771839
Regular
Jan 27, 2020

MICHAEL KARLIS vs. CITY OF GLENDALE

This case involves a firefighter's workers' compensation claim for injuries including to his spine, skin, and cardiovascular system. The defendant appealed the initial award, arguing for a cardiac MRI, disputing the cause of GERD, and questioning the disability rating for the skin condition. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address these issues. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the award, reducing the permanent disability rating slightly to 87% due to a re-evaluation of the skin condition impairment rating.

GERDNSAIDLVHechocardiogramcardiac MRIactinic keratosisprecancerous lesionsdisfigurementAMA Guidespermanent disability rating
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2004

Velella v. New York Local Condotional Release Commission

The petitioners, including Gonzalez, Caba, Stephens, Velella, and DelToro, challenged determinations by the Conditional Release Commission and the Department of Correction. These determinations advised petitioners that their conditional releases were invalid and directed them to surrender. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied their five CPLR article 78 petitions. This appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the petitioners' conditional releases illegal due to non-compliance with Correction Law § 273 (1) and (6). The court also ruled that the agencies had the power to set aside determinations based on significant irregularities and that the petitioners had no substantive due process right to illegal orders, having been afforded adequate procedural due process through the CPLR article 78 proceedings.

Conditional ReleaseCorrection Law ViolationsDue ProcessArticle 78 PetitionAgency AuthorityIllegal ReleaseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewGovernment EstoppelNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dunham-Grimm v. Columbia County Health Department

This appeal concerned a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying benefits to a claimant, ruling that her disability was not causally related to her employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample support in the record for the Board's conclusion that the necessary causal relationship between the claimant's initial skin condition and her employment was not established. Furthermore, any subsequent aggravation of the condition was deemed not compensable as an occupational disease in this particular case. The court emphasized that the causal relationship between employment and a disease, or its effect on a preexisting condition, constitutes a factual question reserved for the Workers' Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationCausationDisabilityOccupational DiseaseSkin ConditionBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewFactual QuestionBenefits DenialAffirmation
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00229 [168 AD3d 491]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2019

Sanchez v. 404 Park Partners, LP

Luis Sanchez, a construction worker, was injured after falling through an uncovered floor opening at a work site. He moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against the property owner, 404 Park Partners, LP, the general contractor, Sciame Construction, LLC, and subcontractor Cord Contracting Co. Inc., which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the liability findings against these parties, noting the owner and general contractor's statutory duties and the subcontractor's delegated duty to cover floor openings. Additionally, the court modified the lower court's indemnification rulings. It granted conditional full contractual indemnification to Sciame from United Air Conditioning Corp. II and conditional contractual indemnification to 404 Park and Sciame from Cord, contingent on the extent of their respective negligence, while also preserving factual issues concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Sciame.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code ViolationsProximate Cause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGlone v. Contract Callers, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael McGlone initiated a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action against Contract Callers, Inc. (CCI), Michael McGuire, and William Tim Wertz, alleging unpaid overtime for work performed before and after recorded workdays and during meal breaks. McGlone sought conditional certification for a nationwide collective action of Field Service Representatives (FSRs), asserting a common policy of wage violations, including uncompensated preparatory and concluding tasks, and automatic meal break deductions despite working through them. The court applied a two-step analysis for FLSA collective actions, focusing on the lenient "notice stage" standard. While the plaintiff claimed company-wide misconduct, his evidence for a nationwide class was deemed insufficient, relying primarily on "information and belief." Consequently, the court denied conditional certification for a nationwide class but granted it for FSRs employed in CCI's New York Division, where McGlone demonstrated direct personal knowledge of the alleged violations and supervisory directives. Additionally, the statute of limitations was equitably tolled as of the motion's filing date due to the court's processing time.

FLSACollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime PayWage ViolationsMeal BreaksUncompensated WorkField Service RepresentativesEquitable TollingNew York Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim Eccles v. Truck-Lite, Inc.

The claimant sustained a head injury after falling from a chair at work and sought workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier disputed the claim, attributing the fall to a non-work-related medical condition. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the accident and injuries were not caused by the claimant's preexisting diabetic condition and awarded benefits. The employer and carrier appealed. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the Board's authority to assess witness credibility and medical expert opinions, and found the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 had not been rebutted. The court also upheld the Board's rejection of the argument that the claim should be denied due to a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a.

Workers' CompensationFall from ChairHead InjuryDiabetic ConditionHypoglycemiaPresumption of CompensabilityCredibility AssessmentMedical Expert OpinionAppellate ReviewSection 21 WCL
References
4
Case No. ADJ11396782
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

SALVADOR RODRIQUEZ-GOMEZ vs. CONTROL AIR CONDITIONING CORPORATION

In *Rodriguez-Gomez v. Control Air Conditioning Corporation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result without it, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate either of these conditions were met, and therefore denied the petition.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyFinal Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Eagle Sanitation, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kevin Moore and Roger Snyder filed a lawsuit against Eagle Sanitation Inc. and Michael Reali, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. They moved for conditional certification as an FLSA collective action, production of contact information for potential class members from April 2005 to April 2011, and court authorization to circulate a Notice of Pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson, granted the motion for conditional certification, finding that the plaintiffs met the lenient evidentiary standard required at this stage. Additionally, the court granted the request for defendants to produce contact information for a six-year period to account for state law claims, emphasizing judicial economy. The court also authorized the dissemination of the proposed notice, with minor modifications regarding the inclusion of defense counsel's contact details and clarification on potential costs and discovery obligations for opt-in plaintiffs.

FLSACollective ActionOvertime CompensationNew York Labor LawConditional CertificationNotice of PendencyStatute of LimitationsDiscovery of Class MembersWage and Hour DisputeEmployment Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fonda v. Norton Co.

Claimant suffered serious injuries to his right leg, hip, and spine in February 1988, necessitating two laminectomies for a herniated disc. The employer and its insurer challenged the Workers’ Compensation Board's determination that the claimant's permanent disability resulted solely from his back injury, arguing that a preexisting dormant heart condition contributed. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's disability was not materially or substantially greater due to the heart condition. The Board's prerogative to resolve conflicting medical opinions was upheld. Furthermore, the court found the employer's argument regarding a contractually based reimbursement claim could not be raised for the first time on appeal, as it was not addressed administratively.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryPreexisting ConditionHeart ConditionDisabilityLaminectomyCausationMedical EvidenceFactual DisputeAppellate Review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,824 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