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

Claim of Byrne v. Fall Fitting, Inc.

The claimant, a welder, suffered a back injury at work and received workers' compensation benefits. The employer's insurance carrier sought to suspend payments based on a medical report discrediting the causal link between the injury and employment. The Workers' Compensation Board rejected this report as incredible, found a causally related disability, and ordered continued payments. On appeal by the employer and carrier, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to resolve conflicting medical evidence and finding substantial evidence to support the causal relationship.

Causally Related DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical Report RejectionConflicting Medical EvidencePayment SuspensionAppeal AffirmationBoard AuthoritySubstantial EvidenceBack InjuryWelder
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carroll v. Fagan, Inc.

The claimant, a welder, was injured while commuting to work after his employer provided a per diem for living expenses due to the distant worksite. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, disallowing the claim. The claimant appealed, arguing entitlement due to the per diem financing travel and his status as an outside employee. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the per diem was for housing, not transportation, and that the claimant reported to a fixed location, thus his commuting injury was not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Commuting InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPer DiemFixed WorkplaceEmployment TravelCompensability of InjuryBoard Decision ReversalAppellate AffirmationEmployer Provided Lodging
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaffke v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Plaintiff, a welder, was injured after falling from a scaffolding plank elevated approximately six feet above a platform, which broke. He had attempted to find an appropriate safety belt but was unsuccessful. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. Defendant and third-party defendant appealed, arguing the recalcitrant worker defense. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the safety device was not at the plaintiff's immediate work site and there was no evidence that the plaintiff refused to use a safety belt.

Scaffolding accidentWorker fallRecalcitrant worker defenseSummary judgmentAppellate reviewWorkplace safetyPersonal injuryConstruction accidentDuty to provide safety devicesAvailability of safety devices
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1998

Claim of Murphy v. New York City Police Department

The claimant, a welder for 27-28 years, developed chronic irritative bronchitis due to welding fume exposure, distinct from asbestos exposure. He filed for workers' compensation and settled a third-party action against asbestos manufacturers. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the self-insured employer credit for the third-party settlement, concluding the occupational disease (chronic irritative bronchitis) was not caused by asbestos. The Board reasoned there was no double recovery as the compensation award was for an injury different from the third-party settlement. The self-insured employer appealed this denial, but the decision was affirmed.

Workers CompensationOccupational Lung DiseaseChronic Irritative BronchitisWelding FumesAsbestos ExposureThird-Party SettlementEmployer Credit DenialDouble RecoveryWorkers Compensation Law Section 29Appellate Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otis Eastern Service, Inc. v. Hudacs

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the respondent regarding the petitioner's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages and wage supplements to 28 workers at the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center project. The petitioner argued that workers were properly classified as general laborers and welder helpers, while the respondent contended they should be classified as intermediate laborers under the Laborers’ Union Local 17 Agreement. The Hearing Officer initially sided with the petitioner, but the respondent rejected this, finding willful underpayments. The court affirmed the respondent's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the finding of willfulness was justified.

Prevailing WageWage SupplementsWorker ClassificationLabor LawCPLR Article 78Willful UnderpaymentUnion ContractsJudicial ReviewAdministrative DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Klimczak v. General Crushed Stone Co.

Claimant, a welder, was discharged by his employer in June 1981 and sought restoration, alleging wrongful discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 120. The Workers' Compensation Board found no causal connection between the claimant's compensation filing and his dismissal, determining that the employer was unaware of the claim at the time of discharge. The Board concluded that the dismissal was based on the claimant's absenteeism, which preceded his injury. This court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the record contained substantial evidence to support the determination and that the claimant failed to meet the burden of proving a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationRetaliationWrongful DischargeAbsenteeismBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityEmployee RightsJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2016

Grabar v. Nichols, Long & Moore Construction Corp.

Plaintiffs, including Joseph T. Grabar, sought damages under Labor Law and common-law negligence after Grabar fell from a trailer while refueling a welder. The trailer bed was approximately 20 inches from the ground. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting the defendant's cross-motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that the trailer did not present the type of elevation-related risk contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1), distinguishing it from other cases involving significant elevation hazards.

Labor LawElevation RiskSummary JudgmentTrailer FallCommon-Law NegligenceWorkplace SafetyPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewNew York LawConstruction Accident
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1986

Claim of Stiso v. Hallen Construction Co.

Claimant's decedent suffered a cerebral vascular accident (CVA) in 1973 while employed as a welder, an incident alleged to be stress-related. He subsequently died in 1976 from another CVA. His widow sought workers' compensation benefits, contending that the 1973 incident was causally related to his employment and led to his ultimate demise. Conflicting expert medical opinions were presented regarding the causal relationship between the work activity and the CVA incidents. The Workers’ Compensation Board, after considering the evidence including an impartial expert's conclusion, found no causal relationship. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence to support its factual findings despite the conflicting medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationCerebral Vascular AccidentCVACausationMedical Expert OpinionConflicting EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionStress-Related InjuryEmployment Incident
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rea v. Albert Elia Building Co.

Plaintiff Philip John Rea, a welder, sustained serious injuries when a scaffold rope parted, causing him to fall while working on a sewage treatment plant. He and his wife (plaintiffs) moved for partial summary judgment, arguing absolute liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and (3). The defendant, Albert Elia Building Company, Inc., submitted an attorney's affidavit that did not dispute the plaintiffs' account of the accident or the cause. The court found no factual issues on liability, affirming the defendant's absolute duty under the statute which cannot be avoided by claims of plaintiff's fault or defendant's lack of fault. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order and granted the motion for partial summary judgment.

Scaffold AccidentAbsolute LiabilityLabor LawPartial Summary JudgmentWelder InjuryConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityWorker SafetyStatutory DutyPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hammond v. International Paper Co.

This case concerns a plaintiff, a welder, who sustained injuries after slipping on a wet floor at the defendant's paper mill. The plaintiff brought a cause of action under Labor Law § 200 (1) and § 241 (6). The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that it had fulfilled its duty of care by providing warnings about the inherent wet conditions in the factory. The Supreme Court denied the motion, concluding that there remained material questions of fact regarding whether the defendant provided adequate protection for the safety of its workers. The judicial opinion concurs with the denial of summary judgment, emphasizing that it is a factual question whether signs and a handbook alone were sufficient to meet the duty of reasonable care, suggesting further protective measures could have been considered.

slip and fallconstruction projectpaper millwet floorduty of caresafe working environmentsummary judgmentnegligencequestion of factwarning signs
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 29 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