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

Hill v. Stahl

Plaintiff, an employee of One Source, Inc., was cleaning windows at 277 Park Avenue using a motorized scaffold. The scaffold's motor and electric brake failed due to an incorrect voltage setting at the eighth-floor outlet (220V instead of 110V), causing the scaffold to descend rapidly. Plaintiff attempted to release his safety clip but was unable, sustaining a torn rotator cuff and herniated disc. He sued 277 Park and Spider under Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6). The motion court denied plaintiff's summary judgment motion and dismissed claims against 277 Park and Spider. This court modified that decision, reinstating Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 claims against 277 Park and granting plaintiff partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against 277 Park, finding 277 Park breached its nondelegable duty and that plaintiff's actions were at most contributory negligence, which is not a defense under § 240 (1). The Labor Law § 200 claim against Spider was affirmed as dismissed.

Scaffold LawLabor LawWorker SafetyConstruction AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentContributory NegligenceNondelegable DutyProximate CauseVoltage Malfunction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scheidt v. Oberg

This case is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the defendants in a dog bite incident. The plaintiff sued after being bitten by the defendants' dog, Ziggy. To recover, the plaintiff needed to prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owners knew or should have known of them. The defendants presented evidence of no prior aggressive behavior or complaints. While the plaintiff described Ziggy barking, growling, and eventually biting him, he failed to provide evidence of the dog's known prior aggressive behavior or the owners' knowledge. A witness also testified to aggressive behavior but admitted not reporting it to the owners. The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants was affirmed due to the plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the dog's vicious propensities and the owners' knowledge.

Dog biteAnimal attackVicious propensitiesOwner knowledgeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewBurden of proofPrior aggressive behaviorSaratoga CountyCourt of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gribetz

The People moved for disclosure of defendant A.T.'s HIV test results under Public Health Law § 2785 (2) (a). A.T. is charged with reckless endangerment and attempted assault after allegedly biting a mental health worker and threatening to transmit AIDS, claiming to be HIV positive. The court found a 'compelling need' for disclosure to prove A.T.'s state of mind and the grave risk of death required for reckless endangerment, despite the bite not breaking the skin. Weighing disclosure against privacy, the court determined A.T. waived her privacy interest by publicly announcing her HIV status and using it to threaten a crime. The motion was granted, ordering disclosure to the Rockland County District Attorney's Office with strict limitations on redisclosure and sealing of related documents.

HIV disclosurereckless endangermentattempted assaultpublic health lawcompelling needprivacy interestwaivercriminal proceedingbite incidentmental health facility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Longstreet v. Peltz

The plaintiff, a nanny, allegedly sustained injuries from a dog bite by the defendant's dog. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the dog lacked vicious propensities, but the Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied the motion. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found that the defendant had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

Personal InjuryDog BiteSummary JudgmentVicious PropensitiesAppellate ReviewNannyPrima Facie ShowingTriable Issue of FactReversedMotion Granted
References
5
Case No. ADJ8586896
Regular
Dec 27, 2017

, Jose Benitez (Deceased), Zeferina Higuera Quezada vs. , AG Force, LLC, , Intercare Holding Insurance Services, , Gurmail Chehal and Samarjit Kaur, as Husband and Wife, Uninsured

This case concerns a deceased laborer, Jose Benitez, whose widow claimed his death from cellulitis resulted from an insect bite sustained while working for AG Force, LLC. Despite the lack of direct witnesses, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found that the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) determination of industrial causation was supported by the credible testimony of the applicant's wife and medical reports. The Board emphasized the "reasonable probability" standard for industrial causation and gave deference to the ALJ's credibility findings.

Industrial causationreasonable probabilitycircumstantial evidencecredible testimonyWCJ credibility assessmentinsect bitecellulitisspider bitebrown recluse spiderattending physician
References
4
Case No. ADJ8 440661 ADJ8954872 ADJ8954861
Regular
Mar 18, 2016

CRAIG GROTH vs. COASTLAND, INC. dba COAST LANDSCAPE, BRECKENRIDGE INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the prior award, finding the applicant's dog bite injury claim (ADJ8440661) was not barred by the statute of limitations. This decision reversed the trial judge's finding, holding that the employer's failure to inform the applicant of his workers' compensation rights tolled the statute until the claim was officially reported. The Board found prejudice to the applicant without tolling and rejected the defendant's argument regarding prejudice to the carrier, noting the insurer retains credit rights. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other issues related to ADJ8440661.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryStatute of LimitationsTollingEmployer Duty to InformDog BiteLandscape Construction WorkerReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardMedical Legal Costs
References
8
Case No. ADJ6736602 (MF); ADJ6736601; ADJ6736597; ADJ8013380
Regular
Sep 06, 2012

SABRINA TAANING vs. EAST BAY MUNICIPALITY UTILITY DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured; Adjusted By ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant, a surveyor, claimed she contracted Lyme disease from tick bites sustained during employment with East Bay Municipal Utility District. The WCAB found that the applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The WCAB specifically adopted the reasoning of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ), which found the medical report of Dr. Thomas Allems to be substantial evidence supporting this conclusion. The WCAB also admonished the applicant's attorney for failing to comply with rules requiring fair and accurate representation of the evidence in the petition.

Lyme diseaseAOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportsubstantial evidencetick bitesBorrelia burgdorferiWestern blotPCR testingdiagnostic criteria
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 1985

People v. Bass

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Nassau County, convicting him of multiple counts of murder, rape, and sodomy. The appeal challenged the People's proof of identity beyond a reasonable doubt and the denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the evidence legally sufficient, the verdict not against the weight of the evidence, and no merit to contentions regarding probable cause for arrest or the 'no inference' charge. Key evidence included a blood-stained poncho matching the victim's blood, bite marks consistent with the defendant's teeth, and a fetal monitor strap (similar to one used at his daughter's birth) found at the crime scene.

Murder Second DegreeRape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeJury VerdictPhysical Evidence SuppressionSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceProbable Cause for ArrestNo Inference ChargeHarmless Error
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2011

Solomon v. Nassau County

Plaintiff Peter Solomon, a former inmate, sued Nassau County for injuries, including PTSD, allegedly caused by a rodent bite in jail. A non-party, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), moved to quash subpoenas seeking testimony from two of its employees, Dr. Leo Sher and Ruth Batista, who treated Solomon. The Court granted the VA's motion, ruling that compelling the VA employees to testify would impose an undue burden on the agency and its patients. To mitigate prejudice to the Plaintiff, the Court modified a prior order, granting Solomon 60 days to retain and designate an expert witness to address his emotional damages and interpret his VA medical records.

PTSDSubpoenaQuash MotionTouhy RequestAdministrative Procedure ActFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureUndue BurdenExpert WitnessDiscovery DisputeEmotional Damages
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bailey v. Ben Ciccone, Inc.

Claimant, a construction worker, developed Lyme disease after a tick bite while working. He subsequently experienced progressive muscle weakness, leading to permanent total disability. Initially, the employer and its carrier accepted the claim and paid benefits. However, they later appealed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision, disputing the causal link between Lyme disease and the claimant's ongoing disability. After reviewing extensive medical testimony, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the amendment of the claim to include consequential motor neuron disease, anxiety, and stress disorder. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the resolution of conflicting medical opinions, when supported by substantial evidence, falls within the Board's exclusive province.

Lyme DiseaseMotor Neuron DiseaseCausation (Medical)Permanent Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical Expert TestimonyConsequential InjuryAnxiety and Stress DisorderSubstantial Evidence Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 14 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