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
Aug 18, 1994

Callahan v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co.

This New York Supreme Court appellate decision concerns a worker's personal injury claim and subsequent indemnification dispute between third-party defendants S & A Concrete Co., Inc. and Hannibal Construction Co. The plaintiff worker sustained injuries from a fall on a construction site, leading to a $3,200,000 settlement paid by Hannibal's insurer. The trial focused on which third-party defendant was responsible for the faulty scaffold and thus required to indemnify the other, with the burden on S & A to prove Hannibal's negligence. The trial court granted Hannibal a directed verdict, finding S & A failed to present a prima facie case and was liable for indemnification, also denying S & A's motion to vacate the judgment. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment and order, concluding S & A's arguments, including the use of OSHA citations, were without merit.

Personal InjuryDefective ScaffoldIndemnificationThird-Party ClaimsDirected VerdictNegligent SupervisionOSHA CitationsStipulationAppellate ReviewVacatur Motion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flick v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The Supreme Court's order and judgment granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was unanimously affirmed. The plaintiff, an employee of Frontier Insulation/Rochester, Inc., successfully demonstrated a statutory violation and its proximate cause in his injury, supported by co-worker testimonies. The court also affirmed the summary judgment granted to Eastman Kodak, Co., Inc. against Monroe Piping & Sheet Metal, Inc., and Monroe against Frontier Insulation/Rochester, Inc., on common-law indemnification. This was based on the finding that neither Kodak nor Monroe supervised Frontier employees' work or provided safety equipment, and Kodak's periodic inspections did not establish common-law liability. Additionally, Monroe's motion for summary judgment on contractual indemnification against Frontier was affirmed, as the agreement mandated Frontier indemnify Monroe for injuries arising from Frontier’s work without Monroe’s negligence.

Labor LawStatutory ViolationProximate CauseSummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationWorkplace InjuryAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paris v. Reiss

The court unanimously modified an order, granting the defendant leave to serve an amended answer to include the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Law as an affirmative defense. However, the court upheld the denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). This denial was based on an unresolved issue of fact concerning the employment status of plaintiff Steven M. Paris, indicating that the defendant had not met the burden for summary judgment. This decision was made in light of a related case, Paris v Reiss.

Workers' Compensation LawLabor LawAffirmative DefenseSummary JudgmentEmployment StatusAppellate DecisionLeave to AmendCourt OrderJudicial DiscretionChautauqua County
References
4
Case No. ADJ3931818
Regular
Jun 22, 2009

ROCCO PASCALE vs. PIRELLI ARMSTRONG TIRE CORPORATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied S & B Surgery Center's (SB) petition for reconsideration of a decision disallowing its entire $51,773.15 lien. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that SB failed to meet its burden of proof under *Tapia v. Skill Master Staffing*. Specifically, SB did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the reasonableness of its charges beyond its own billing, despite the established legal precedent that lien claimants bear this affirmative burden. The Board also noted SB's pattern of misstating the law, suggesting potential grounds for sanctions.

Tapia v. Skill Master StaffingLien claimantBurden of proofReconsiderationWCJAppeals BoardReasonableness of billingOutpatient surgery centerFacility feeLabor Code Section 4603.2
References
4
Case No. ADJ10160197 ADJ8200777
Regular
Sep 03, 2019

JOSE CARDENAS vs. COSTA VIEW FARMS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Monrovia Hospital's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original decision that the hospital was entitled to nothing further on its lien. The Board found that the hospital failed to meet its burden of proving its charges were based on a "reasonable cost basis" as required for long-term care facilities exempt from the Official Medical Fee Schedule. Expert testimony presented by both parties, particularly regarding cost-to-charge ratios derived from OSHPD data, supported the finding that the hospital's proposed methodologies did not adequately demonstrate reasonable costs. The Board affirmed that the hospital, not the defendant, bears the affirmative burden of proving the reasonableness of its lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMonrovia HospitalCosta View FarmsZenith Insurance CompanyWCJLabor Code section 5906reasonable cost basis
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 1996

Diakakis v. Bedrick

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order that granted the defendant-respondent's motion to vacate a prior default order and subsequently granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The vacatur of the default was deemed proper due to excusable law office failure by the calendar service and the evident merits of the affirmative defense, with no prejudice to the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff was barred by the exclusive remedy of the Workers' Compensation Law because he had applied for, was awarded, and accepted workers' compensation benefits from the defendant's insurance carrier, and failed to present documentary proof disproving his employment by the defendant. The decision to grant summary judgment was therefore upheld.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentVacatur of DefaultLaw Office FailureAffirmative DefenseAppellate AffirmationEmployer LiabilityDefault OrderExcusable Neglect
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beattie v. Ebbels

The claimant, an office manager employed since 1965, suffered a compensable injury on February 25, 1981, leading to an award for a permanent partial disability. The employer was aware of the claimant's preexisting herniated disc from 1965, but the claimant performed duties without issues. The primary legal question addressed whether the employer's knowledge of this preexisting condition at the time of hire established liability for the Special Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). The Worker’s Compensation Board determined there was insufficient knowledge, a decision which the court affirmed. Additionally, a jurisdictional issue raised by the carrier was found to be without merit, leading to an affirmation of the decision with costs awarded to the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySpecial Disability FundPreexisting ConditionEmployer KnowledgeAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionJurisdictional IssueDecision Affirmed
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henneberry v. ING Capital Advisors

Virginia Henneberry was terminated from her employment with ING Furman Selz Asset Management, LLC and ING Capital Advisors, LLC. She initiated arbitration, challenging the burden of proof and arguing arbitrator misconduct after the arbitrator reversed his initial ruling on the burden of proof. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division upheld the arbitration award. This court affirmed those decisions, finding that the arbitrator's procedural error in shifting the burden of proof did not deprive Henneberry of a fundamentally fair arbitration or exceed his authority, especially since he concluded the employer would have prevailed regardless of who bore the burden.

ArbitrationEmployment AgreementTerminationBurden of ProofArbitrator MisconductDue ProcessFundamental FairnessCPLR 7511Judicial ReviewAppellate Practice
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1980

Claim of White v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the employer, New York City Housing Authority, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 21, 1980. The Board affirmed a penalty imposed on the carrier for failing to timely reimburse the employer for wages paid to a claimant. An earlier award, affirmed by the board on April 25, 1979, directed reimbursement to the Authority. The carrier's failure to pay within 10 days of the April 1979 decision, specifically by May 25, 1979, resulted in a 20% penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (subd 3, par [c]). The court affirmed the penalty, ruling that the statute is self-executing and applies even when the payment is to an employer for wages advanced, emphasizing the legislative intent to ensure prompt compensation.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentEmployer ReimbursementInsurance Carrier LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew YorkWage CreditDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1983

Yollin v. Holland America Cruises, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff who sued Holland America Cruises, Inc. and Holland America Cruises, N. V. on behalf of himself and other passengers for alleged fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and false advertising related to an 11-day cruise. The claims stemmed from purported lack of shopping opportunities at certain ports and an unannounced itinerary change from Bermuda to St. Maarten. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the plaintiff's motion for class action certification, a decision affirmed by the appellate court on different grounds, citing a lack of merit in the claims and the impracticality of class action due to potential mini-trials. The court also modified the lower court's order by dismissing the seventh affirmative defense as moot, while otherwise affirming the original decision. The itinerary change was found to be a reasonable exercise of discretion by the defendant due to a strike in Bermuda.

Class actionCruise contractItinerary changeConsumer fraudBreach of contractNegligenceFalse advertisingNumerosity requirementContractual limitationMaritime law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 14,543 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