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

Hinton v. Acme Steel & Malleable Iron Works

Claimant, an employee of Acme Steel & Malleable Iron Works from 1950-1970, developed silicosis due to dust exposure. His initial workers' compensation claim in 1970 was denied due to only partial disability. In 1980, the case was reopened as his condition worsened to total disability. After numerous hearings and appeals, the Workers' Compensation Board found claimant totally disabled by silicosis causally related to his employment, with a disablement date of May 30, 1979. The Board held Acme, self-insured in 1970 (last exposure date), liable over the State Insurance Fund (Acme's insurer in 1979). Acme and the Special Funds Conservation Committee appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions regarding occupational disease, causation, and coverage, finding ample support in medical testimony.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseTotal DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsReopened ClaimDate of DisablementEmployer LiabilitySelf-InsuranceSpecial Disability FundMedical Evidence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jara v. Strong Steel Door, Inc.

Carlos Huerta, an undocumented worker, sued Strong Steel Door, Inc., and David Wei, claiming they failed to pay him the prevailing wage required by public works contracts. Strong Steel Door had terminated Huerta's employment after discovering he provided false documentation. Strong Steel Door sought summary judgment, arguing the employment contract was illegal due to the false documentation and that Huerta was precluded from recovery by the doctrine of 'unclean hands.' The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was affirmed. The appellate court held that neither the contract nor the work performed was illegal, and Strong Steel Door was not injured by Huerta's false documentation as they received the bargained-for labor. Additionally, Strong Steel Door failed to meet its burden of proof regarding payment of the prevailing wage.

breach of contractsummary judgmentprevailing wageundocumented workerillegal contract defenseunclean hands doctrineImmigration Reform and Control Actemployment lawappellate reviewcontract enforceability
References
15
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06230 [164 AD3d 1425]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2018

Hill v. Mid Is. Steel Corp.

The plaintiff, Danny Hill, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to Mid Island Steel Corp. in a personal injury action. Hill sustained injuries using a telescoping lift owned by Mid Island Steel Corp. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Mid Island Steel Corp., finding it was not an owner, contractor, or agent. However, the court modified the order, reinstating the common-law negligence claim, as Mid Island Steel Corp. failed to prima facie establish the lift was not in a defective condition.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Defective EquipmentTelescoping LiftAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.)

Appellant Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania (BCWP) appealed a Bankruptcy Court decision that denied its request for relief from an automatic stay in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of LTV Steel Company, Inc. BCWP, an insurance provider for LTV Steel's former constituent companies (J&L and Republic), sought to set off a $2.88 million refund it owed LTV/J&L against over $3 million in unreimbursed claims it paid as a participant in a national syndication arrangement for LTV/Republic. The Bankruptcy Court found no mutuality between BCWP and LTV Steel to permit the set-off under 11 U.S.C. § 553(a). BCWP argued for third-party beneficiary status and equitable principles. The District Court affirmed the denial, ruling that BCWP was not a third-party beneficiary and that allowing the set-off would create an inequitable preference for BCWP over other creditors.

BankruptcyAutomatic StaySet-offMutualityThird-Party BeneficiaryInsurance ContractsHealth Care BenefitsSyndication ArrangementEmployer-Employee BenefitsDebtor in Possession
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2011

Severstal U.S. Holdings, LLC v. RG Steel, LLC

Plaintiffs Severstal U.S. Holdings, LLC and Severstal U.S. Holdings II, Inc. initiated a declaratory judgment action against RG Steel to prevent arbitration regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA). RG Steel, in response, sought to compel arbitration, appoint an arbitrator, and stay the plaintiffs' action, arguing that disputes over purchase price adjustments related to Net Working Capital calculations were arbitrable. The core dispute centered on whether 'Contested Adjustments' should be resolved through the SPA's arbitration clause, particularly those concerning GAAP consistency, or if they constituted claims for breach of representation and warranty, falling under indemnification. The court, referencing the Federal Arbitration Act's strong policy favoring arbitration, determined that the contested adjustments were indeed arbitrable, distinguishing prior cases cited by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court granted RG Steel's motion, compelling arbitration for all contested adjustments and staying the declaratory judgment action commenced by Severstal.

Arbitration AgreementStock Purchase AgreementGAAPNet Working CapitalDeclaratory JudgmentStay of ActionFederal Arbitration ActPurchase Price AdjustmentIndemnificationContract Interpretation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1987

Reska v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee of Bethlehem Steel, initiated an action to recover reduced pension benefits. His monthly pension was decreased after the defendants, Bethlehem Steel Corporation and Subsidiary Companies, offset a Workers' Compensation Board award for a 20% partial hearing loss against his pension. The plaintiff argued this reduction violated the company's Plan provisions and ERISA's non-forfeiture clause. The court, however, found that the plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies and that the Plan's language allowed for such offsets for partial loss, explicitly excepting only total loss of a bodily member. Citing Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., the court concluded that ERISA permits such offsets, even for workers' compensation awards not solely for wage replacement, as it aligns with Congress's intent to provide cost-cutting avenues for employers. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Pension BenefitsERISAWorkers' Compensation OffsetNon-forfeiture ProvisionSummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesDisability PaymentsBethlehem Steel Pension PlanPartial Hearing LossEmployee Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LTV Steel Co. v. Shalala (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case addresses the application of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 (Coal Act) to LTV Steel Company and its mining subsidiaries, who are undergoing Chapter 11 reorganization. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, arguing that obligations under the Coal Act were pre-petition claims and thus barred, or that they were not "taxes" entitled to priority in bankruptcy. The court denied LTV Steel's motion for partial summary judgment. It ruled that claims arising from the Coal Act were not pre-petition and that the mandatory contributions constitute "taxes" for bankruptcy purposes, therefore qualifying as administrative expenses with first priority under the Bankruptcy Code.

Coal ActRetiree BenefitsHealth BenefitsLife InsuranceBankruptcyChapter 11Declaratory JudgmentAdministrative ExpensesTax ClassificationStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zalenski v. Crucible Steel, Inc.

The employer appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that mandated the provision of a hearing aid to a claimant. The claimant had sustained a 60% uncorrected binaural hearing loss due to prolonged industrial noise exposure at Crucible Steel. The employer contended that hearing aids were not covered under Workers' Compensation Law § 13(a), that it constituted a double recovery after a schedule award, and that a board rule (12 NYCRR 350.1) exempted them from this obligation. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that hearing aids are covered by § 13(a) as 'other devices or appliances necessary' and that the conflicting board rule was invalid.

Hearing Aid ProvisionOccupational Hearing LossIndustrial Noise ExposureSchedule Award ChallengeStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Agency AuthorityRule Contravening StatuteMedical Device CoverageEmployer LiabilityDouble Recovery Claim
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1959

Flamm v. Bethlehem Steel Co.

The case involves an appeal by defendant Bethlehem Steel Company from an order denying its motion to dismiss a complaint filed by the plaintiff, Flamm. The plaintiff sought damages for fraud, alleging a conspiracy that deprived him of compensation rights under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially denied the defendant's motion, which was based on the court's alleged lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The appellate court affirmed the order, explicitly stating that no issue other than jurisdiction was considered or decided.

FraudLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActJurisdictionMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Thomas v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

Claimant, after retiring in 1970, filed a claim in 1981 against his self-insured employer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, for occupational hearing loss. The employer controverted the claim, arguing it was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law sections 28 and 40. Initially disallowed by a referee, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, interpreting a 1980 amendment to section 49-bb as creating a six-month grace period for previously time-barred claims. This court disagreed, finding the Board's retroactive application of section 49-bb erroneous and incompatible with other existing statutes. The court concluded that such an interpretation was irrational and potentially unconstitutional, thus reversing the Board's decision and dismissing the claim.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationDue ProcessAdministrative Agency DeferenceSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate Review
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 300 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