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
Apr 17, 2012

Mullin v. Waste Management of New York, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order granting partial summary judgment. The plaintiff, an employee of Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., sustained injuries after falling from a ladder on Riccelli's trailer at a Waste Management of New York, LLC facility. An agreement between Riccelli and Waste Management required Riccelli to name Waste Management as an additional insured on various insurance policies. Waste Management successfully moved for partial summary judgment on a breach of contract claim against Riccelli due to Riccelli's failure to name Waste Management as an additional insured. Riccelli's subsequent motion to submit new evidence was denied as the evidence was available previously and would not alter the outcome. The court found that Waste Management was not an additional insured on the CGL or automobile liability policies at the time of the accident.

Breach of ContractAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewDenial of Motion to RenewWorkers' Compensation PolicyCommercial General LiabilityAutomobile Liability Policy
References
2
Case No. ADJ3982008
Regular
Dec 21, 2009

KAREN LAUDERBACH vs. CAL TRANS, SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES ROHNERT PARK

The WCJ found the applicant sustained industrial injury causing 39% permanent disability. The applicant sought reconsideration, contending the evidence justified 100% disability and an additional 15% under Labor Code section 4658(d)(2). The Board denied reconsideration, finding insufficient evidence for total disability or additional compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKaren LauderbachCal TransSCIFcumulative traumabilateral upper extremitiespermanent disabilityDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Larhette

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, which denied their motion to add Watson & Chalin Manufacturing, Inc. as an additional defendant in a personal injury case. The plaintiff, Steven L. Davis, was involved in a collision with the defendant, Allen R. Larhette, who was on a business trip for Watson & Chalin. The plaintiffs sought to apply the 'relation-back doctrine' to overcome the statute of limitations, arguing that Larhette and Watson & Chalin were 'united in interest' due to vicarious liability. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, finding no evidence Larhette was acting within the scope of employment. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the defendant's activities while on a business trip, including stopping for dinner and returning to his motel, were incidental to the employer's business, thus establishing vicarious liability and unity of interest. Consequently, the motion to add Watson & Chalin as a defendant was granted.

Relation-back doctrineVicarious liabilityScope of employmentStatute of limitationsPersonal injuryAppellate reviewMotion to amend complaintUnity of interestEmployer liabilityRespondeat superior
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1994

O'Hara v. Dwyer

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which dismissed his proceeding to compel arbitration. Although the Supreme Court effectively granted reargument by addressing the merits of additional evidence, it adhered to its original determination to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that the additional evidence submitted on reargument was insufficient to establish a timely notice of appeal regarding his discharge, as required by the collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationAppealReargumentDismissal of ProceedingCollective Bargaining AgreementTimelinessSufficiency of EvidenceJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureLabor Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trapani v. 10 Arial Way Associates

Cesare Trapani, an employee of P & W Electric, Inc., was injured at a construction site owned by 10 Arial Way Associates and managed by The Marcus Organization, Inc. Both property owner and manager sought defense and indemnification as additional insureds under an insurance policy issued by Assurance Company of America to P & W. A Judicial Hearing Officer initially found them to be additional insureds, a finding upheld by the Supreme Court which denied summary judgment to P & W and Assurance. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court determined that the work contract did not expressly or specifically require additional insured coverage, and a certificate of insurance alone was insufficient. Consequently, the motions by P & W Electric, Inc. and Assurance Company of America were granted, the cross-motions by 10 Arial Way Associates and The Marcus Organization, Inc. were denied, and a judgment was entered declaring that the latter are not entitled to insurance coverage as additional insureds.

Additional InsuredInsurance PolicyContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentConstruction Site InjuryThird-Party LiabilityCertificate of Insurance ValidityWork ContractAppellate Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Carter

The defendant, a general manager at Comfort Inn in Jamestown, was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree for stealing money from the motel's cash receipts. The defendant appealed, arguing that a moral certainty instruction for circumstantial evidence should have been given. The court disagreed, citing direct evidence from a co-worker who witnessed the defendant taking money and the defendant's own admission of taking funds for rent. Additionally, there was direct evidence that the defendant entered erroneous check amounts in the motel's ledger. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's decision not to issue a circumstantial evidence charge with the 'moral certainty' standard, as the evidence presented was both direct and circumstantial.

Grand LarcenyCircumstantial EvidenceDirect EvidenceMoral Certainty InstructionAppellate ReviewCriminal ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceTheftEmployee MisconductTrial Court Error
References
1
Case No. 533503
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Wayne Charles Belfiore

Claimant, a hospital delivery driver, sustained head and traumatic brain injuries in February 2020 after a fall at work. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier disputed the claim's causal relationship. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim based on an independent medical examination, despite the carrier's absence from the hearing. The carrier's application for Board review was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board due to noncompliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) regarding preserving objections and submitting additional evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of review or in refusing to consider the additional documentary evidence.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewProcedural ComplianceMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationObjection PreservationAdministrative ReviewClaim EstablishmentInjury CausationNew York Regulations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Porter v. D.A. Collins Construction

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying additional benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (v). Claimant had a prior non-work-related motor vehicle accident in 1968 and a work-related left hip injury in 1988, for which a schedule loss of use award was granted. After exhausting this award, claimant sought additional benefits, but the Board denied the application, ruling that the loss of earning capacity was not due solely to the compensable injury. Medical evidence confirmed that claimant's disability stemmed in part from the 1968 non-work-related injuries and a preexisting degenerative condition. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseEarning CapacityPreexisting InjuryCausationHip InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewBenefits Denial
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. CV-23-1834
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Matter of Gunness v. Prime Piping & Heating Inc.

Claimant Arnold Gunness appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board denying his claim for causally-related injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. Gunness initially filed a claim for a right foot fracture sustained in June 2020. Later, he filed a second claim alleging additional injuries to his neck, back, and left knee due to an altered gait and cane usage following the foot injury. Medical opinions conflicted; a podiatrist's opinion was disregarded, and a physiatrist's opinion on causation was deemed unpersuasive due to claimant's inconsistent accounts and lack of understanding of the mechanism of injury for the additional body parts. An orthopedic surgeon also could not establish a causal connection. The WCLJ and the Board found that the claimant failed to establish a causal connection, citing a lack of credible medical evidence and the claimant's inconsistent accounts. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence.

CausationWorkers' CompensationInjury ClaimMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationBoard AuthorityAppellate ReviewAltered GaitRight Foot FractureNeck Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 12,459 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