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. ADJ2747954 (LAO 0820830) ADJ1942372 (LAO 0822123) ADJ2627431 (LAO 0820831)
Regular
Aug 15, 2016

ROSARIO GUTIERREZ vs. ADVANCE PAPER BOX, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed a petition for reconsideration in the case of Rosario Gutierrez versus Advance Paper Box and its insurer, the California Insurance Guarantee Association. The dismissal is due to the petitioner voluntarily withdrawing their request for reconsideration of the June 3, 2016 decision. This administrative order formally closes the reconsideration process as requested.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdvance Paper BoxCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationSedgwickUS Fidelity & GuaranteeLiquidationCase Numbers
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Havas v. Victory Paper Stock Co.

This appeal concerns Leslie Havas, an employee of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, who was injured while manually loading heavy waste paper bales onto a Victory Paper Stock Company truck. The accident occurred due to an unsecured, improvised ramp after the hydraulic lift was out of service. Havas sued Victory, who then brought Morgan in as a third-party defendant. A jury found both liable, apportioning fault equally. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding Victory owed no duty and committed no proximate negligence. This court, in an opinion by Judge Fuchsberg, reverses the Appellate Division's order, asserting that the trial judge properly submitted the case to the jury. The decision emphasizes the foreseeability of the accident and the commingled efforts of both companies' employees, which established a mutual duty of care. The case is remitted to the Appellate Division for a review of the facts.

NegligenceForeseeabilityDuty of CareJoint EffortsContributory NegligenceJury RoleAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryLoading AccidentThird-Party Liability
References
8
Case No. ADJ2747954 (LAO 0820830)
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

ROSARIO GUTIERREZ vs. ADVANCE PAPER BOX, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ erred in ordering reimbursement based on federal regulations. The Board determined that long-term care hospitals are entitled to a reasonable cost basis for their services, not a predetermined federal rate. The case was returned to the trial level for the WCJ to determine a reasonable fee for the lien claimant. The Board also clarified that services from such facilities are exempt from the Official Medical Fee Schedule and the Administrative Director's Independent Bill Review process.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent Bill ReviewOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleReasonable Cost BasisLong Term Care HospitalsFederal RegulationsAdministrative DirectorLabor Code
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2005

Evans v. P.C.I. Paper Conversions, Inc.

Plaintiff, who was employed by Contemporary Personnel Staffing, Inc. and placed at P.C.I. Paper Conversions, Inc. (PCI), sustained injuries while operating an offset machine. She subsequently initiated a negligence and products liability action against PCI. PCI sought summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff was its special employee, thereby barring the action under Workers’ Compensation Law §§11 and 29. The Supreme Court denied this motion, ruling that there was a triable issue of fact concerning an agreement between Contemporary Personnel Staffing, Inc. and PCI that might have restricted PCI from employing the plaintiff in that capacity. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no error in the lower court's conclusion.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProducts LiabilityWorkers Compensation LawSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityTriable Issue of FactControl over Work
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silberstein v. Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

This is an employment discrimination action filed by plaintiff Silberstein, formerly a senior vice president at The New Yorker, alleging demotion and termination due to a second pregnancy under Title VII and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Defendants, Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. and S.I. Néwhouse, Jr., moved to dismiss claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision. The court granted the motion, ruling that New York law’s stringent standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress were not met, especially given that statutory remedies for discrimination already exist without punitive damages. The negligent supervision claim was also dismissed due to the exclusivity of workers' compensation as a remedy for co-employee negligence and the lack of allegations regarding the employer's knowledge of the supervisor's propensities.

Employment DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent SupervisionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawsWorkers' Compensation LawMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schmitz v. St. Regis Paper Co.

Plaintiff Kathleen M. Schmitz, having been reinstated to a new position following a successful Title VII employment discrimination suit against St. Regis Paper Company (now Champion International Corporation), filed a motion for contempt. She alleged that the new role was not comparable to her previous marketing manager position. The District Court denied her motion, ruling that her claim was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches due to an unreasonable delay in filing the motion after becoming aware of her concerns. Additionally, the court found that Schmitz failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Champion did not comply with the reinstatement order, determining the new position was sufficiently comparable regarding pay, title, and duties.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Reinstatement OrderMotion for ContemptEquitable Doctrine of LachesComparable Employment PositionJob ResponsibilitiesSuccessor CorporationMerger Impact
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1958

West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. A. D. Lewis

The case involves an interpleader action brought by West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company concerning union dues collected from its employees. Rival claims for these funds were made by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and an "Organizing Committee" formed by disaffiliating members of Local 12915. The core dispute revolved around the legitimacy of the disaffiliation and the validity of District 50's claim to the local's assets and checked-off dues. The court ultimately ruled in favor of District 50 and the temporary administrator of Local 12915, upholding the existing collective bargaining agreement and union constitution. The cross-claim by the "Organizing Committee" was dismissed, and the plaintiff was discharged from liability.

InterpleaderUnion Dues DisputeLabor Union DisaffiliationCollective BargainingProperty Rights of UnionsTemporary AdministrationNational Labor Relations BoardContract FrustrationDue ProcessTrade Union Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1979

Salwen Paper Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

The plaintiff, Salwen Paper Co., Profit Sharing Retirement Trust, sued defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent performance. A prior federal action by the plaintiff was dismissed due to insufficient federal securities law claims, and the federal court explicitly declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the common-law claims. The defendant moved to dismiss the current state action based on res judicata, which Special Term granted. The appellate court reversed, holding that res judicata does not apply because the federal court's dismissal did not address the merits of the common-law claims. Therefore, the common-law claims can proceed in state court.

Res JudicataPendent JurisdictionFederal Securities LawCommon Law ClaimsBreach of Fiduciary DutyNegligencePrior DismissalAppellate ReviewJurisdictional DiscretionState Court Action
References
17
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07432 [166 AD3d 621]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2018

Matter of Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This case involves an appeal by Progressive Advanced Insurance Company (Progressive) against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) concerning an arbitration award. The dispute arose under Insurance Law § 5105 regarding a loss transfer claim, where NYCTA sought reimbursement from Progressive for workers' compensation benefits paid to its employee after a collision involving Progressive's insured. The central issue was whether a 20% no-fault offset applied to the workers' compensation wages, with the arbitrator ruling it did not, as a one-third offset had already been applied. Progressive's petition to vacate the award was denied by the Supreme Court, Queens County. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial, concluding that the arbitrator's determination was supported by a reasonable hypothesis and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Arbitration AwardLoss TransferInsurance LawWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNo-Fault OffsetAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and CapriciousReasonable Hypothesis
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gould v. International Paper Co.

Plaintiff Lawrence Gould sustained a severe head injury while performing logging work for his father on property owned by International Paper Company. Plaintiff and his wife initiated an action against G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc., International Paper Company, and International Paper Timberlands Operating Company, alleging that G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. left the property in a dangerous condition by allowing hanging trees to remain, which caused the plaintiff's injuries. Earlier in the litigation, International Paper Company was granted summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, on the grounds of a lack of proximate cause evidence. Subsequently, G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, citing factual issues from a second deposition. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment to G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. is reversed. The appellate court ruled that the doctrine of the law of the case precluded reconsideration of the proximate cause issue, as it had already been judicially determined on facts common to all defendants. The court also found the second deposition testimony to be inconsistent, speculative, and lacking probative value. Summary judgment is granted to G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc., and the complaint against it is dismissed.

Summary JudgmentProximate CauseLaw of the CaseLogging AccidentPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityDangerous Property ConditionDeposition Testimony
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 538 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