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. 2024 NY Slip Op 03519
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

Matter of Reyes Bonilla v. XL Specialty Ins.

Claimants Jose Reyes Bonilla and Marvin Reyes Bonilla, carpenters, were involved in a motor vehicle accident while commuting to a job site in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, in an employer-provided van. They filed workers' compensation claims, which were established against XL Specialty Insurance by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). XL Specialty appealed, arguing its policy did not cover commuting injuries and that it was not the proper carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decisions, finding XL Specialty failed to preserve its challenge to being the carrier and that the employer's responsibility for transportation made the injuries compensable. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, agreeing that the issue was unpreserved and that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment due to the employer's control over the conveyance.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment InjuriesCommuting AccidentEmployer Provided TransportationWrap-up PolicyInsurance Coverage DisputeCarrier LiabilityIssue PreservationAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ3419685 (GRO 0029797)
Regular
Dec 10, 2000

MARLENA MOORE vs. ALBERTSONS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Marlena Moore against Albertsons and Specialty Risk Services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has reviewed the petition and the report from the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Consequently, the WCAB has denied the Petition for Removal. The decision incorporates the reasoning provided in the WCJ's report.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMARLENA MOOREALBERTSONSSPECIALTY RISK SERVICESPetition for RemovalWCJ reportdenial of removaladministrative law judgeADJ3419685GRO 0029797
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Silva v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency

Jose Silva, an employee of Mar Jea Equipment, Inc., was allegedly injured during construction work on property owned by the Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency. Silva sued the Agency for personal injuries. The Agency, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Mar Jea for indemnification. Mar Jea moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, arguing that the Agency's claim for common-law indemnification was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Although the Agency contended it had a claim for contractual indemnification, the subcontract between Mar Jea and the general contractor required written consent from the Agency, which was never obtained. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Mar Jea's motion to dismiss, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. POM 0281587
Regular
May 02, 2008

ALINDA YELLOWHAIR vs. HAIR MASTERS, THE HARTFORD, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES (Adjusting Agent)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a prior award that improperly included disability from an admitted non-industrial shoulder injury. The Board reduced the applicant's permanent disability rating from 24% to 16% by removing the shoulder component and found that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof for apportioning head and neck injury disability due to a subsequent motor vehicle accident. Consequently, the award for permanent disability indemnity was adjusted to reflect the 16% rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial InjuryNon-Industrial AccidentSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCausation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. (LFF), an organic farm, initiated construction of three single-family dwellings for employees within a resource management area of the Adirondack Park without a permit. The Adirondack Park Agency (Agency) issued a cease and desist order and sought enforcement, arguing these were 'single family dwellings' requiring permits, not exempt 'agricultural use structures'. LFF challenged the Agency's jurisdiction and interpretation, asserting that dwellings associated with agricultural use should be considered 'agricultural use structures'. The court annulled the Agency's determination, concluding that single-family dwellings 'directly and customarily associated with agricultural use' can qualify as 'agricultural use structures' under the APA Act, thereby dismissing the Agency's enforcement action.

Adirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsResource Management AreasPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationSubdivision of LandFarm Worker HousingArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Determination
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Tempesta v. City of New York

A plaintiff was injured after falling from a ladder while working for Confort & Company at premises owned by the New York City Industrial Development Agency. The plaintiff sued the Agency under Labor Law. The Agency initiated a third-party action against Confort for common-law contribution and indemnification. Confort, which had general liability insurance naming both itself and the Agency as insureds, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing the insurance waived the Agency's rights up to the policy limit. The Agency cross-moved to amend its complaint to assert contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court granted Confort's motion and denied the Agency's cross-motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Aetna policy covered Confort's indemnification liability, and an insurer cannot seek subrogation against its own insured for a covered risk.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law ContributionAdditional InsuredSubrogationInsurance PolicyWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ3288082 (LBO 0384974)
Regular
May 09, 2013

ANDRES CRUZ vs. ALLSTATE/KOOKLANCAR PEYMAN, SPECIALTY RISK/SEDGWICK

This case, *Andres Cruz v. Allstate/Kooklancar Peyman; Specialty Risk/Sedgwick*, concerns a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) prior decision. The WCAB rescinded the ALJ's decision and remanded the case back for further proceedings and a new decision at the trial level. This order is not a final determination on the merits of the claim.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeRescinded DecisionFurther ProceedingsTrial LevelFinal DecisionMeritsDental Trauma CenterSpeciality Risk
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson Pipe Supply Co. v. Wyoming County Industrial Development Agency

This case addresses whether a construction project involving an industrial development agency (WCIDA) qualifies as a 'public improvement' under State Finance Law § 137, which would mandate the securing of payment bonds. Plaintiff Davidson, a supplier, was not paid for materials provided to a subcontractor on an energy cogeneration plant project developed by Indeck Energy Resources with WCIDA's assistance. Davidson sued WCIDA and Indeck for their alleged failure to require a bond. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Davidson, but the Appellate Division reversed, concluding the project was not a public improvement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that WCIDA's ownership was primarily for tax benefits, with the private entity, Indeck, bearing the economic risks and benefits. Consequently, the court held that the project was not a public improvement under the statute, and the complaint against the defendants was dismissed.

Industrial Development AgencyPublic ImprovementState Finance LawPayment BondLien LawConstruction ProjectPrivate EntityTax BenefitsCogeneration PlantAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, acting as a governmental agency and successor in interest to several insolvent workers' compensation self-insured trusts, commenced an action against a third-party administrator (Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.), its employees, related corporate entities, insurance brokers (including Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc.), former trustees of one of the trusts (RITNY), and an actuarial firm (Regnier Consulting Group, Inc.). The plaintiff alleged misconduct and malfeasance by the defendants led to trust insolvencies and sought to recover accumulated deficits. The case involves cross appeals challenging the Supreme Court’s partial dismissal of the complaint, specifically concerning the timeliness of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and common-law indemnification, applying the repudiation and discovery rules for statute of limitations. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by dismissing specific claims against Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc., broadening the temporal scope of breach of fiduciary duty claims against other defendants, and reinstating common-law indemnification claims against several RITNY trustees, affirming the order as modified and remitting the case.

Workers' CompensationBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractCommon-Law IndemnificationStatute of LimitationsRepudiation RuleDiscovery RuleTrust Insolvency
References
27
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 3,053 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