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. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2012

Barreto v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff, an asbestos removal worker for P.A.L. Environmental Safety Corp. (PAL), fell into an uncovered manhole in January 2005 during a city environmental project. He brought claims against IMS Safety Corp., Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), and the City of New York for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The plaintiff was instructed by his supervisor to replace the manhole cover before dismantling the containment enclosure, but he failed to do so and fell in. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed, finding the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident for failing to use the available safety device (the manhole cover) and disregarding supervisor instructions. IMS was found not liable due to lack of supervisory authority, and other defendants were not liable under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence due to no supervision or notice of defect.

Personal InjuryLabor LawManhole AccidentNegligenceSummary JudgmentSole Proximate CauseSafety DeviceSite SafetyEmployer LiabilityContractor Liability
References
6
Case No. 77-CV-127, 77-CV-191
Regular Panel Decision

Avitzur v. Davidson

Plaintiff Boaz Avitzur brought an action alleging defendants, various supervisory personnel at the Department of the Army, violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights by conspiring to terminate his civilian employment. Avitzur claimed he was forced to take a psychiatric exam, subjected to surveillance, suspended, and terminated, allegedly in retaliation for whistleblowing and asserting employment rights. While Avitzur was reinstated with back pay through administrative remedies, he sought damages. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that claims arising from the employer-employee relationship were adequately addressed by the comprehensive administrative scheme, thus precluding a Bivens-type action for damages. Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged "unconstitutional surveillance" did not constitute a deprivation of constitutional rights.

Federal EmploymentConstitutional RightsBivens ActionQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentSixth Amendment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rozewicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This opinion addresses a complex medical malpractice case involving the death of Mrs. Rosewicz, a Jehovah's Witness, who refused blood transfusions due to religious beliefs. Justice Lehner explores three categories of relevant legal precedents: government benefit denials for religious refusal of treatment, tortfeasor liability and mitigation of damages, and malpractice claims where a patient refused life-saving treatment on religious grounds. The court declines to charge the jury on mitigation of damages, deeming it inappropriate for this specific case. Instead, the judge rules that the jury will be instructed on the principles of assumption of risk and comparative fault, allowing for the apportionment of liability between the defendant's alleged negligence and the decedent's refusal of blood transfusions, consistent with decisions in Shorter v Drury and Corlett v Caserta.

Medical MalpracticeReligious FreedomBlood Transfusion RefusalJehovah's WitnessAssumption of RiskComparative FaultMitigation of DamagesWrongful DeathJury InstructionsNegligence
References
12
Case No. 2013 NY Slip Op 33641DJ]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2013

DeRose v. Bloomingdale's Inc.

A carpenter (plaintiff) was injured in defendant's store while dismantling a wall. Despite attempting to retrieve a proper Baker scaffold, his supervisor directed him to use an inadequate A-frame ladder due to a company policy about customers. While using the ladder on an uneven floor, it shifted, causing him to fall and suffer fractures. Plaintiff sued under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied partial summary judgment, but the appellate court modified this, finding the defendant absolutely liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide an adequate safety device that was made unavailable by supervisory instruction.

Construction Worker InjuryFall From HeightLabor Law § 240(1) ViolationInadequate Safety DeviceSupervisor's InstructionAbsolute LiabilityPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate DecisionWorkplace AccidentDemolition Project
References
11
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

HARGRAVE, GARRETT v. LECHASE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC

This dissenting opinion pertains to a personal injury claim under Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200, and common-law negligence. The dissenting judge argues that the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact concerning the defendant's supervisory control and authority over the work site where plaintiff Garrett Hargrave was injured. Evidence cited includes a coworker's affidavit detailing defendant's representatives' inspections, instructions, and authority to stop unsafe work, and the presence of another contractor. The dissent contends that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but correctly denied it for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, advocating for a modification of the lower court's order.

Labor LawSupervisory ControlCommon-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentTriable Issue of FactWork Site SafetyDissenting OpinionAppellate DivisionConstruction Site AccidentPlaintiff's Employer
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02626 [171 AD3d 474]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

Antonio v. West 70th Owners Corp.

Plaintiff Jason Antonio claimed he was injured after slipping and falling on slippery stairs because he was directed to remove his boots while working. Defendants West 70th Owners Corp. and SEPI Realty, LLC moved for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims against them. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants established prima facie that they did not exercise supervisory control over the means and methods of plaintiff's work. Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding apparent authority for the instruction to remove boots, and his own supervisor gave the ultimate direction. Furthermore, the record showed the stairs were not in a dangerous condition, as plaintiff testified they had no observable defects and he slipped solely due to wearing socks without boots.

negligenceLabor Lawsummary judgmentpremises liabilitysupervisory controlslip and fallhazardous conditionappellate divisionpersonal injuryrespondent
References
3
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01887 [236 AD3d 617]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Velez v. LSG 105 W. 28th, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court had granted plaintiff Jose Luis Velez summary judgment on liability against LSG 105 West 28th, LLC and Flintlock Construction Services LLC, finding he fell from an elevation without adequate safety devices as instructed by his foreman. Conversely, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim and their third-party claims for indemnification and contribution against Construction & Realty Safety Group, Inc. (CRSG). The court also granted CRSG's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding CRSG was not negligent as it lacked supervisory control over the plaintiff's work, thus precluding claims requiring a finding of negligence. The Appellate Division upheld these determinations.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentFall from ElevationSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligence
References
5
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06700
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2025

Mitchell v. City of New York

Brian E. Mitchell, a dock builder, sustained personal injuries while removing floating dock sections for dredging in Flushing Bay, alleging he lost balance on an unsecured finger pier. He initiated an action against the City of New York, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims but denied it for Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the condition under Labor Law § 200 was open and obvious, and the Industrial Code provisions for Labor Law § 241 (6) were inapplicable. The court found remaining triable issues of fact concerning the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to contradictory testimony regarding supervisory instructions.

Dock Builder InjuryFloating Pier AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related RiskIndustrial Code Violations
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 734 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