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. 532194
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Marc Trombino

Claimant Marc Trombino, an iron worker, filed a workers' compensation claim in September 2016 for work-related lung conditions, including silicosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, naming FMB Inc. as his employer. The claim was initially indexed against Phoenix Insurance Co., then corrected to Liberty Insurance Corporation after an investigation. Liberty disputed coverage, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie evidence and established the claim, finding an occupational disease and permanent total disability. Liberty appealed, belatedly raising a lack of policy coverage for the work location. The Board remitted the matter for a hearing on coverage, during which Ace American Insurance Company was put on notice. The WCLJ and subsequently the Board invoked the doctrine of laches, barring Liberty from denying coverage due to its inexcusable delay in raising the defense and the resultant prejudice to Ace American. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseSilicosisChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseLaches DoctrineInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate ReviewPrima Facie EvidencePermanent Total DisabilityMedical Expert Testimony
References
7
Case No. CV-23-0928
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Patricio Herrera

Claimant Patricio Herrera appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed his claim for benefits, alleging he contracted COVID-19 during employment with American Badge, Inc. The Board initially established the claim but found no causally-related lost time, then later found no work-related COVID-19 contraction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that a compensable COVID-19 claim requires demonstrating specific exposure or an elevated risk in the work environment. The court found that Herrera failed to provide sufficient evidence, as his symptoms appeared before those of most coworkers, and the employer implemented safety protocols. Therefore, the Board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.

COVID-19 claimWorkers' Compensation Board appealCausally-related injuryOccupational exposureInfection at workplaceSubstantial evidence reviewClaim disallowanceAppellate affirmationEmployer safety protocolsMedical deposition testimony
References
8
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 1997

Lurzer GMBH v. American Showcase, Inc.

Lurzer GMBH sued American Showcase, Inc. and The One Club For Art & Copy, Inc. for various claims, including trademark infringement, false advertising, and breach of contract. American had previously initiated arbitration regarding a breach of contract claim. Defendants moved to stay Lurzer's lawsuit pending arbitration, while Lurzer cross-moved to stay or dismiss the arbitration. The Court denied the defendants' motion to stay except for specific breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and good faith/fair dealing claims, finding the arbitration clause in the 1987 Agreement valid and broadly applicable to contract-related disputes, but not trademark ownership disputes. The Court also denied Lurzer's motion to stay or dismiss American's arbitration claim regarding advertising page limits, confirming the arbitration clause's applicability and the nature of the claim as non-past due moneys.

Arbitration AgreementTrademark DisputeContract InterpretationBreach of Fiduciary DutyCovenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingStay of ProceedingsFraudulent InducementFederal Arbitration ActScope of ArbitrationAdvertising Contract
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1985

Spoon v. American Agriculturalist, Inc.

Celeste Spoon, an assistant circulation manager, filed a lawsuit against her employer, American Agriculturalist, Inc., and her supervisor, Nelson Dunham, alleging sexual harassment including vulgar language and inappropriate physical contact. Spoon reported these incidents to the company's president, Albert Hoefer, Jr., on two occasions. The Supreme Court at Special Term initially granted American's motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing claims related to Executive Law § 296, vicarious liability, and a derivative claim by Spoon's husband, arguing that the employer lacked sufficient notice of the harassment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that Spoon's conflicting deposition testimony and affidavit created a triable issue of fact regarding whether American was aware of Dunham's conduct and failed to take appropriate corrective action. Consequently, the appellate court reinstated the dismissed causes of action and the derivative claim, asserting that the doctrine of respondeat superior could apply given the employer's potential knowledge and inaction.

Sexual HarassmentEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentExecutive LawWorkers' CompensationNotice RequirementIntentional TortLoss of Consortium
References
12
Case No. 535717
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Denis Campos

The Appellate Division of the Third Judicial Department affirmed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a claim filed by Denis Campos. Claimant Campos, a construction worker, sought benefits after an accident. The Board had ruled that American Zurich Insurance Company was the liable workers' compensation carrier due to an improperly canceled policy, as per Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). American Zurich's appeal, including a request for reconsideration and full Board review, was denied because they failed to present crucial evidence to the Workers' Compensation Law Judge despite prior directives. The Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider newly submitted evidence on administrative appeal and affirmed the denial of reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Carrier LiabilityPolicy CancellationAdministrative ReviewAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulesJudicial DiscretionConstruction AccidentLadder FallThird Judicial Department
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1989

Marroquin v. American Trading Transportation Co.

Plaintiff Edmundo S. Marroquin was injured on November 8, 1985, while cleaning a cargo tank aboard the S.S. Washington Trader on the high seas. Marroquin was employed by third-party defendant Stevens Technical Services and the vessel was owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff American Trading Transportation Company. Marroquin initially sued American Trading for negligence and later added a cause of action for unseaworthiness. American Trading then instituted a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Stevens. Stevens moved for summary judgment, arguing that Marroquin's unseaworthiness claim was barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which would also dismiss American Trading's third-party action. The court denied Stevens' motion, finding that Marroquin was not covered by the LHWCA because he was the equivalent of a 'member of a crew' working on the high seas, not a land-based worker in port. Additionally, the LHWCA's geographical scope does not extend to injuries on the high seas during a long international voyage. Therefore, Marroquin could maintain his unseaworthiness claim, and American Trading could seek contribution or indemnification from Stevens.

Maritime LawUnseaworthiness ClaimLHWCA InapplicabilityHigh Seas InjurySeaman StatusThird-Party ActionSummary Judgment MotionVessel Cleaning CrewContribution and Indemnification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibson v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

John Gibson, a seaman, suffered a heart attack in 1970 while working aboard the vessel Seawitch. His wife, Anna Gibson, subsequently initiated an action in February 1977 against his employer, American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, claiming damages for loss of consortium. American Export sought to dismiss her complaint, contending that spouses of injured seamen lacked a claim for loss of consortium under general maritime law at the time, and that the landmark Supreme Court decision in American Export Lines v Alvez (1980), which established this right, should not be retroactively applied. The court thoroughly reviewed the evolution of maritime law concerning loss of consortium, referencing key decisions such as Moragne (1970), Sea-Land Servs. v Gaudet (1974), and Alvez (1980). Ultimately, the court denied American Export's motion, ruling that the Alvez decision should be applied retroactively to cases like Mrs. Gibson's, where the plaintiff was actively challenging existing legal precedents prior to the Alvez ruling.

RetroactivityLoss of ConsortiumMaritime LawSeaman's RightsPersonal InjuryGeneral Maritime LawSpousal ClaimsFederal Maritime LawAppellate ReviewTort Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dennis v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The plaintiff, a former employee, filed an employment discrimination claim against Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Pan Am), Betty Kwong, and Su-zann Hull, alleging race and color discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She later attempted to amend her complaint to include an age discrimination claim under the ADEA and various state tort claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the ADEA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the state tort claims as preempted, and sought Rule 11 sanctions. The Court dismissed the age discrimination claim, ruling that it was not reasonably related to the original EEOC complaint based on race and color. Furthermore, the Court granted Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff's attorney for asserting the state tort claims, determining they were preempted by the Railway Labor Act and filed without sufficient pre-filing inquiry.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Subject Matter JurisdictionRule 11 SanctionsPreemptionRailway Labor Act (RLA)EEOC ComplaintRace Discrimination
References
21
Case No. CV-23-0370
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Delmi Medina

Claimant Delmi Medina appealed decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a claim for work-related back and knee injuries sustained in February 2021 while employed by American Maintenance Inc. The Board reversed a WCLJ's decision, finding that Medina failed to provide timely written notice of the accident within 30 days as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 18, and subsequently denied her application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decisions. The Court limited its review to whether the denial of reconsideration was an abuse of discretion or arbitrary and capricious, noting that Medina had abandoned her challenge to the underlying Board decision. The Court found no due process violation in the same Board panel members reviewing the reconsideration request and concluded that the Board's denial was proper.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimely Notice of InjuryBoard Panel DecisionReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewAppellate DivisionAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousDue ProcessWorkers' Compensation Law
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 18,711 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