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

Kellar v. Inductotherm Corp.

Plaintiffs James D. Kellar, a foundry worker, and his wife, filed a products liability action against the manufacturer of a channel furnace. Kellar was injured when he was struck by scrap metal, became dazed, and fell into an unguarded pit surrounding the furnace at Vestal Manufacturing Company, his employer. The furnace was sold to Vestal in 1971, and Vestal installed it with platforms, creating the pit. Vestal also attached a rear deck from the defendant, which partially covered the pit when the furnace was horizontal. Plaintiffs argued the furnace was defective and unreasonably dangerous due to the lack of a guard for the pit and a failure to warn. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that the defect was in Vestal's installation, not their product, and that the danger was obvious. The court, applying Tennessee law, granted the defendant's motion, ruling that liability under Section 402A only applies if the manufacturer's product itself is defective and causes harm, and that the open pit was created by Vestal, not the defendant. Furthermore, the court found the danger of the unguarded pit was obvious to the plaintiff.

products liabilityfoundry accidentunguarded pitmanufacturing defectfailure to warnobvious dangerjudgment notwithstanding the verdictcomponent part liabilityemployer liabilityworker injury
References
13
Case No. ADJ7793905 ADJ7793938
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

SHEDERICK FOWLKS vs. LUBE PIT STOP, INC., ADVANTAGE WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO.

In *Fowlks v. Lube Pit Stop, Inc.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a June 29, 2012 decision. The WCAB found that granting reconsideration was necessary to allow sufficient time to further study the factual and legal issues. This action is intended to ensure a complete understanding of the record and enable a just decision. Consequently, all future filings and communications regarding this case must be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners' office in San Francisco.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationFactual IssuesLegal IssuesVan Nuys District OfficeSan FranciscoElectronic Adjudication Management SystemADJ7793905ADJ7793938
References
0
Case No. ADJ7793905, ADJ7793938
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

SHEDERICK FOWLKS vs. LUBE PIT STOP, INC., ADVANTAGE WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a prior decision finding the applicant, Shderick Fowlks, not covered by workers' compensation. Fowlks, an officer and sole shareholder of Lube Pit Stop, Inc., was deemed an employee under Labor Code section 3351(c) but excluded from compensation coverage by section 4151(a) because the corporation lacked specific election through a compensation policy. The WCAB clarified that while officers are generally employees, sole shareholder-officers require election to be covered, which was not demonstrated here due to policy exclusions. Therefore, Fowlks' claims for injuries sustained while working for the corporation were dismissed.

Labor Code section 3351(c)corporate officersole shareholderworkers' compensation coverageelectioninsurance policyexclusionshamadministrative law judgePetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mendez v. HRH Construction Co.

The plaintiff, Robert Mendez, an electrician, sustained injuries after falling 20 feet through an unguarded hole on the 14th floor of a construction site. He moved for partial summary judgment against HRH Construction Company, Inc. under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1), finding that the 14th floor of a construction site is an elevated work site and that an unguarded hole presents the same hazard as a roof-top hole. However, the court denied summary judgment under Labor Law § 241(6) due to existing material issues of fact regarding reasonable protection and comparative negligence. All defendant cross-motions were denied.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Summary JudgmentElevated Work SiteUnguarded OpeningAbsolute LiabilityProximate CauseComparative Negligence
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05584
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Alvarado v. SC 142 W. 24 LLC

Plaintiff Angel Alvarado, injured in a slip and fall in an excavation pit, appealed an order from the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the original order. The court denied Alvarado's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, ruling that the excavation pit was not a work area contemplated by the Industrial Code. It also dismissed his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding no elevation-related risk. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual disputes. Furthermore, the court conditionally granted the defendants' third-party contractual indemnification claim against Sky Materials, the plaintiff's employer.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationIndustrial CodeExcavation PitSlip and FallAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentNegligencePremises Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schaff v. Hendrich

E. P. Hendrich, an employee of C. E. Sehaff, the receiver for the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas and the Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway Company of Texas, sued for personal injuries. Hendrich, a foreman of a tank gang, slipped on wet cinders in a roundhouse pit while working on an engine tank and injured his breast. The pit's drainpipe was obstructed, leading to a slippery condition that Hendrich had previously reported to his foreman, Mr. Varley, who gave an equivocal response. The defense argued that Hendrich assumed the risks of his injury, especially since he was engaged in interstate commerce, and that Varley's response did not constitute a promise to remedy the unsafe condition. The court concluded that Varley's statement 'Well, I will see' was insufficient to support a promise to remedy, and since no such promise was pleaded or submitted to the jury, the exception to the common-law rule of assumed risk did not apply. Consequently, the judgment in favor of Hendrich was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of the appellant (receiver).

Assumed RiskInterstate CommerceFederal Employers' Liability ActRailway AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceSlippery ConditionRoundhouse PitForeman NotificationPromise to Remedy
References
10
Case No. ADJ8242073
Regular
May 06, 2014

JOSE GUIJOSA vs. PECK ROAD GRAVEL PIT/STEVE BUBALO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior award due to deficiencies in the medical evidence regarding permanent disability. While the Board affirmed the finding of injury AOE/COE, they found the opinions of both treating physician Dr. Capen and Agreed Medical Evaluator Dr. Tooke insufficient to determine permanent disability due to inconsistencies and failure to adhere to AMA Guides. The case is returned to the trial level for further development of the record on permanent disability, with a corrected permanent and stationary date of March 23, 2013.

AOE/COEPermanent DisabilityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardHeavy Equipment OperatorLumbar SpineThoracic SpineAMA GuidesDr. Daniel CapenDr. Michael Tooke
References
0
Case No. SRO 99047, SRO 100453, SRO 100595
Regular
May 28, 2008

CAROLYN FITZGERALD vs. DAVE'S PIT STOP, SUPERIOR NATIONAL, CIGA, BROADSPIRE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision and returned the case for further proceedings. The WCJ's calculation of permanent disability and apportionment was found to be inconsistent with the California Supreme Court's decision in *Brodie* and subsequent WCAB en banc decision in *Benson*. The WCAB stated that the trial judge must reconsider permanent disability and apportionment in light of these rulings, potentially requiring further medical evidence development.

CIGASCIFSuperior NationalliquidationSROindustrial injuryleft kneebackcashierstock clerk
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02008 [226 AD3d 499]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2024

Blacio v. Related Constr. LLC

Plaintiff, Jimmy Blacio, fell through an unguarded stairway opening at a construction site while transporting wooden panels. He moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which was denied by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, granting plaintiff's motion. The court found that adequate protection was not provided, and rejected defendants' arguments regarding notice, sole proximate cause, and prematurity of the motion, affirming plaintiff's entitlement to summary judgment on liability.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryFall AccidentWorkplace Safety
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2004

Lezcano v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an amended judgment that awarded plaintiffs damages after a jury trial. The case involved plaintiff Secundino, who was injured after falling from a scaffold that lacked guardrails. The court found that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on owners, contractors, and their agents for such safety breaches. Defendants' liability was established as a matter of law due to the clear evidence that the worker was provided an unguarded scaffold. The monetary awards granted by the jury were deemed reasonable compensation.

Scaffold accidentFall from heightAbsolute liabilityLabor LawGuardrailsProtective devicesJury trialDamagesAppellate affirmationProximate cause
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 59 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