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
Feb 08, 1988

Drew v. Correct Manufacturing Corp.

Plaintiff was injured when a skyworker or bucket hoist collapsed while he was performing elevated work for his employer at property owned by defendant Rockwell International Corporation. Plaintiff's complaint included a cause of action based upon Labor Law § 240 (1), and he moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability under this statute. The court found that a skyworker, although not specifically listed, is functionally similar to devices covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). The collapse of the safety device established a prima facie statutory violation and proximate cause, shifting the burden to the defendant. The court determined that a design or manufacturing defect causing a safety device to collapse results in absolute liability for the owner. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order was modified, and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was granted and, as modified, affirmed.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawAbsolute LiabilitySkyworker CollapseSafety Device FailureProximate CauseSummary JudgmentDesign DefectManufacturing DefectElevated Work
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Bank v. Village of Tuckahoe

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability for a claimant's left knee injury shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 2005, and compensation benefits were paid until June 20, 2005. In April 2012, a physician requested an MRI, which was performed and revealed a meniscal tear. Subsequently, surgery was authorized and performed in July 2012. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator sought to shift liability to the Special Fund, a move initially rejected by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge but later approved by the Board. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the case was not "truly closed" after the MRI request was approved. The court held that the case was reopened in April 2012, within the statutory seven-year period from the date of injury, thus precluding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened Case DoctrineMedical Treatment AuthorizationCase Closure DeterminationSeven-Year RuleLast Payment of CompensationMeniscal TearMRI AuthorizationSurgery Authorization
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGill v. Qudsi

This case addresses liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for a plaintiff who fell from a ladder while removing a second-story window. The court clarified that while the ladder itself might have been adequate for elevation, the defendant's failure to provide a separate safety device for handling and lowering the 40-50 pound window constituted a distinct elevation-related hazard. This omission was found to be a statutory violation and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's accident. The court further emphasized that claims of the plaintiff's contributory negligence or carelessness were irrelevant to establishing liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The lower court's order was affirmed.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Elevation HazardLadder FallWindow Removal AccidentSafety Device FailureProximate CauseContributory Negligence ImmaterialStatutory ViolationWorkplace InjuryConstruction Site Safety
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morin v. Machnick Builders, Ltd.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by a subcontractor, was injured in a work-related accident when an extension ladder he was using slipped. He moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing that the ladder was not properly secured and constituted a statutory violation. Defendants, the general contractor and property owner, cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause or that he was a recalcitrant worker. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the court found that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) because the ladder was not properly placed and inadequate safety devices were provided, establishing a proximate cause for the injury. The recalcitrant worker defense was also rejected, as plaintiff used the only available safety device and merely failing to follow coworker's advice did not meet the criteria for recalcitrance. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffolding LawLadder SafetyWorkplace AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLiabilityProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Martin v. New York Telephone

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the liability for benefits. The claimant sustained a left knee injury in 1987 and a reinjury in 1995. A 1998 Section 32 settlement agreement released the employer from future claims for a lump sum, but required it to cover medical treatment. In 2004, the claimant developed a consequential right knee injury. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately shifted liability for benefits to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, citing the passage of statutory timeframes. The Special Fund appealed, challenging its statutory liability and the employer's ongoing responsibility for medical expenses per the settlement. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the applicability of Section 25-a and noting the employer's statutory obligation for medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSection 32 Settlement AgreementConsequential InjuryMedical Treatment LiabilityStatutory LiabilitySchedule Loss of UseAppellate ReviewTimelinessBoard Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2000

Claim of Davis v. T.J. Madden Construction Co.

Claimant suffered two work-related knee injuries in 1988 and 1992, leading to separate compensation cases. In April 1999, an application to reopen the 1988 case was filed, supported by a medical report indicating a change in the claimant's condition. The carrier for the 1988 case sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and requested reopening of the 1992 case. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Law Judge's decision, discharging the Special Fund from liability and placing Travelers Property Casualty (1992 carrier) back on notice. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the April 1999 medical report, despite explicitly referencing only the 1988 case, constituted sufficient notice to reopen the interconnected 1992 case within the seven-year statutory period.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftStatute of LimitationsMedical Report as NoticeChange in ConditionKnee InjuryApportionmentBoard DecisionAppeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Palazzolo v. Dutchess County

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left arm in July 2000. Although no lost wages were claimed initially, diagnostic tests were authorized, and issues of permanency and average weekly wages remained unresolved, with a directive for the employer to provide payroll records. In 2013, after claimant sought further medical treatment, the employer requested to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, arguing the statutory time limits had elapsed. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied this request, finding the case was never truly closed due to outstanding issues and unfulfilled directives. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that further proceedings were contemplated, thus preventing the case from being considered truly closed for the purpose of shifting liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferCase ClosureOutstanding IssuesPermanency DeterminationAverage Weekly WagesPayroll RecordsAppellate ReviewNew York Labor Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fuentes v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision dated November 15, 2006. The Board had transferred liability for a claimant's 1998 work-related back injury to the Special Fund, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Special Fund argued that certain payments made to the claimant in late 2005, between November 30 and December 17, were advance payments of compensation, which would preclude the transfer of liability. However, the Board found that these payments were charged to the claimant's accumulated sick leave and did not constitute advance payments of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that the sick leave payments did not prevent the transfer of liability to the Special Fund because they were not made voluntarily in recognition of employer liability, and thus, the criteria for transferring liability to the Special Fund were met.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law Section 25-aAdvance Payments of CompensationSick Leave PlanLiability TransferStale ClaimApplication to Reopen ClaimWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryTreating Physician Report
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Liability Ins. v. Mountain Valley Indemnity Co.

This diversity action involves an insurance dispute between plaintiffs United States Liability Insurance Co. (U.S. Liability) and Mobile Air Transport, Inc., and defendant Mountain Valley Indemnity Co. The conflict arose from a fatal truck accident involving a Mobile Air employee driving a truck leased from Leroy Holding Company, Inc. After an underlying personal injury action settled, U.S. Liability and Mountain Valley each paid $225,000 towards the remaining $450,000 portion of the settlement. The core disagreement is whether the Truck Lease Agreement, which designates Mobile Air's insurance as primary, or the specific 'other insurance' clauses within U.S. Liability's and Mountain Valley's respective policies, which would make Mountain Valley's coverage primary, should govern. Applying New York law, the court ruled that the insurance policy provisions take precedence over the lease agreement. Consequently, U.S. Liability's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Mountain Valley's cross-motion was denied, holding Mountain Valley liable for the entire $450,000 in dispute.

Insurance DisputePrimary vs Excess CoverageTruck Lease AgreementInsurance Policy InterpretationSummary JudgmentNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionIndemnificationSubrogationAutomobile Accident
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 5,529 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