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
May 23, 2000

Claim of Krebs v. Town of Ithaca

A claimant, who previously underwent a total right hip replacement, sustained a work-related twisting injury to his right hip in March 1996. This injury resulted in a permanent partial disability, leading to his retirement. Despite medical evidence linking his disability to the preexisting hip condition, the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that apportionment did not apply to his reduced earnings award. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing for apportionment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that apportionment was not warranted because the claimant had effectively performed his job for approximately one year despite his noncompensable preexisting condition.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentPreexisting ConditionPermanent Partial DisabilityWork-Related InjuryHip InjuryReduced EarningsBoard DecisionAppealNew York Workers' Compensation Law
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08387 [133 AD3d 719]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2015

Jackson v. Georgalos

Sheena Jackson, a postal worker, sued Jorge Georgalos and Joanne Guerrero-Georgalos for personal injuries sustained at their residence. Jackson alleged that as she delivered mail, the defendants' dog jumped on a screen door, causing it to open and the dog to run out. As she tried to avoid the dog, her ankle twisted, leading to a fall on the steps. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating their dog had no prior vicious propensities, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryDog BiteStrict LiabilityVicious PropensitiesSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLandowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseFactual Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renteria v. Santino's Café

Claimant, a chef, suffered a work-related back injury. Five months later, while in Florida, his pain worsened, leading to an emergency room visit where a report noted he 'twisted his back again.' His employer and its carrier argued this constituted a new, unrelated injury and that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. However, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined there was no new accident and that the claimant remained attached to the workforce. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the claimant's job search efforts within medical restrictions and that the worsened pain was an exacerbation of an existing injury.

Back InjuryVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketJob SearchExacerbation of InjuryMedical Report DiscrepancyWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewClaimant TestimonyEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shaffer v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

A plaintiff was injured on a construction site while attempting to guide a scaffolding bridge, causing him to twist his back. He was secured by a safety belt on a scaffold 14 feet above the ground, and the bridge was being lowered by a makeshift pulley controlled by a co-worker. Special Term denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1), citing a factual question about the lowering procedure. The appellate court, however, determined that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable based on the 'falling worker or objects' test from Staples v Town of Amherst. Consequently, the order was modified, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1).

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryWorkplace InjuryConstruction SiteFalling ObjectAppellate ReviewNegligenceWorker Safety
References
1
Case No. 2012 NY Slip Op 31938(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2012

Gove v. McGovern

Plaintiff suffered injuries when a bundle of rebar, being lowered by a coworker, fell and struck him, causing him to twist his back while attempting to prevent himself and the bundle from falling. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that defendants failed to provide adequate safety protection. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, rejecting defendants' arguments regarding alleged discrepancies in plaintiff's statements and claims of plaintiff being the sole proximate cause. It was determined that the injuries directly resulted from elevation-related risks and a lack of proper safety devices, rendering any alleged contributory negligence by the plaintiff irrelevant as a defense.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectElevation HazardWorkplace SafetyLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment AffirmationProximate CausationContributory Negligence No DefenseRebar IncidentUnguarded Platform
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1981

Leahey v. Turner Construction Co.

Plaintiff James Leahey, an employee of Gerald Lollo & Sons, Inc. (a subcontractor for Turner Construction Company and Otis Elevator Company), was injured in 1974 at a construction site in Yonkers, New York. He tripped over a roll of wire from a cyclone fence near a workers' shanty, twisting his knee. Leahey sued Turner and Otis, who then brought a third-party action against Lollo. The trial court denied the defendants' request to instruct the jury on contributory negligence, believing Labor Law § 241 (6) imposed strict liability. The appellate court found this to be an error of law, stating that contributory negligence is a defense to the statute in issue. The judgment awarding Leahey damages was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Construction accidentLabor LawContributory negligenceStrict liabilityJury instructionRemandWorkplace safetySubcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor liabilityPremises liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duke v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of Youst Painting, Inc., was injured on October 8, 1994, while painting a building owned by the defendant when he stepped into an uncovered access hole, twisting his right knee. He filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and 241-a. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendant's cross-motion. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the plaintiff's fall was not from an elevated worksite, thus Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable. Additionally, the court dismissed the Labor Law § 241-a cause of action, clarifying that the access hole was not a 'hatchway' as defined by the statute. The motion was denied, the cross-motion granted, and the first and third causes of action were dismissed.

Labor LawElevated WorksiteHatchway DefinitionSummary Judgment AppealPersonal InjuryConstruction SafetyFall AccidentAccess HoleAppellate ReversalWorkplace Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flihan v. Cornell University

Anthony J. Flihan was injured while unloading a heavy gang box from a truck, twisting his back to avoid being struck. He and his wife sued the property owner (defendant) for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The court previously dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the remaining Labor Law § 241 (6) claim due to inapplicable regulations (12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (2) and 12 NYCRR 23-6.1 (b), (d), (j)(1)), and the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as the defendant lacked supervisory control. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of all remaining causes of action.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceConstruction Site SafetyMaterial HoistingStorage of MaterialSupervisory ControlStatutory ViolationAppellate Division
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2010

Zhu Wei Shi v. Jun Lan Zhang

The plaintiff, hired to repair a damaged garage door at the defendants' three-family dwelling, suffered personal injuries after falling from an allegedly old, shaky, and unsteady ladder that twisted, bent, and collapsed. He initiated an action against the homeowners, including Bi Yu Zhang, asserting claims under common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), but the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the collapse of the ladder constituted a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The defendants failed to present a triable issue of fact, leading to the granting of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability.

Ladder AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryHomeowner LiabilityDefective EquipmentProximate CauseAppellate DivisionNew York LawQueens County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Mollette

Plaintiff Jermaine Lewis, a 15-year-old inmate at Highland OCFS, sued Eddie Mollette, Michael Gavin, John Bahret, and Nate Lassie under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of constitutional rights, excessive force, and failure to intervene. Lewis claims Mollette initiated a physical restraint technique (PRT) without provocation, and Gavin twisted his arm, causing a hairline fracture, while he was already restrained. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lewis failed to exhaust administrative remedies and their actions were justified. The court denied the summary judgment motion, finding Lewis made a reasonable attempt to exhaust remedies and that material facts regarding excessive force and failure to intervene are in dispute, requiring a trial. Claims against Bahret and Lassie, and certain constitutional and supervisory liability claims, were dismissed on consent.

Prisoner Litigation Reform ActPLRA ExhaustionExcessive ForceFailure to InterveneQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentYouth InmatePhysical Restraint Technique (PRT)Constitutional RightsEighth Amendment
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 16 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