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. ADJ3970710
Regular
Oct 15, 2008

ARTHUR FERREL vs. VASKO ELECTRIC, EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision concerning Arthur Ferrel's claim. The Board amended the original findings to specifically order the defendant to pay a lien to Farrell, Fraulob & Brown. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and decisions regarding the lien claims of Dr. Duhan and Adelberg Associates Medical Group.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactLienTrial LevelDr. DuhanAdelberg Associates Medical GroupVasko ElectricExplorer Insurance CompanyArthur Ferrel
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 1991

Arthurs v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Catherine Arthurs sued Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for accidental death benefits following her husband Raymond Arthurs' death, which she attributed to strenuous work in a hot vault. Metropolitan denied benefits, citing Raymond's pre-existing coronary arteriosclerosis. The court determined that Metropolitan's benefit denial must undergo a de novo review under ERISA federal common law, rejecting the insurer's claim of discretionary authority given the plan's wording. Finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the causal relationship between Mr. Arthurs' heart condition and his death, the District Court denied Metropolitan's motion for summary judgment.

ERISAAccidental Death BenefitsSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewDiscretionary AuthorityPre-existing ConditionCoronary ArteriosclerosisCausationWorkers' CompensationInsurance Contract
References
63
Case No. CA 12-00803
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2013

TOWN OF AMHERST v. HILGER, ARTHUR

The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified a judgment by the Supreme Court, Erie County, in a case involving the Town of Amherst and Granite State Insurance Company against Arthur Hilger and Sally Bisher. The dispute arose from the defendants' refusal, as former officers of McGonigle and Hill Roofing, Inc. (M&H), to seek insurance coverage from the New York State Insurance Fund (SIF) for a judgment the Town held against M&H. While the Supreme Court granted plaintiffs a substantial money judgment, the Appellate Division concluded that the plaintiffs' legal theories regarding Business Corporation Law violations and breach of fiduciary duty lacked merit. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in its entirety. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to join M&H as a necessary party and convert the action into a special proceeding under Business Corporation Law § 1008, empowering the court to compel M&H to seek coverage from SIF.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationBusiness Corporation LawFiduciary DutyCorporate DissolutionInsurance CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRemittalNecessary Parties
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Molyneux v. Arthur Guinness & Sons, P.L.C.

Plaintiff John B. Molyneux commenced this action against defendant Arthur Guinness and Sons, P.L.C. (AGS) seeking severance pay, alleging violations of ERISA and breach of contract, following AGS's sale of a subsidiary where Molyneux was employed. AGS moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court dismissed the complaint, finding no federal question jurisdiction under ERISA, as Molyneux failed to demonstrate a qualifying 'plan' and because the alleged plan would primarily benefit non-resident aliens, thus falling outside ERISA's scope. Additionally, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the contract claim due to the involvement of British law, witnesses, and events. The court further concluded that the complaint failed to state an ERISA claim, as it did not allege arbitrary, fraudulent, or bad-faith actions by AGS in denying benefits.

ERISASeverance PayBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionEmployee BenefitsSubsidiary SaleFiduciary DutyNon-Resident Aliens
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.

Axel Johnson, Inc. moved under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) for relief from the dismissal of its securities fraud complaint against Arthur Andersen & Co. The complaint was dismissed as time-barred under the Supreme Court's *Lampf* decision, which established a new retroactive statute of limitations. Johnson's motion is predicated on the newly enacted § 27A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which purports to 'undo' *Lampf*'s retroactive application. Arthur Andersen opposed, arguing § 27A violates the separation of powers doctrine and is unconstitutional. The court granted Johnson's motion, finding § 27A constitutional as it established a new and generally applicable rule for pre-existing cases, thereby not constituting an impermissible legislative reversal of a judicial decision. As a result, both Johnson's federal and related state claims were reinstated.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsRetroactive ApplicationSeparation of PowersDue ProcessVested RightsRule 60(b)Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991Section 27APendent Jurisdiction
References
19
Case No. ADJ 7238353
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

ARTHUR CANNON vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a January 24, 2012 decision in the case of Arthur Cannon vs. City of Sacramento. The WCAB determined that reconsideration was necessary due to statutory time constraints and an initial review of the record. This action will allow for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemCity of SacramentoArthur CannonStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ7238353
Regular
Dec 10, 2012

Arthur Cannon vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the denial of permanent disability for Arthur Cannon, a police officer injured in 2008. An Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) opined that while objective findings were minimal, the applicant's heel pain justified a 7% Whole Person Impairment rating by analogy to gait derangement. The WCAB found the AME's analogy was permissible under *Almaraz/Guzman* to address impairments not specifically covered by the AMA Guides, thus rescinding the original award. The dissenting opinion argued there was no objective evidence of impairment in earning capacity, normal member use, or competitive handicap, and therefore no basis for the rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardArthur CannonCity of SacramentoReconsiderationPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleAgreed Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPlantar FasciitisGait Derangement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2008

Forschner v. Jucca Co.

Arthur Forschner, an injured plaintiff, fell from a beam at a construction site in Putnam County after a ladder he was using was removed. He brought an action seeking damages for personal injuries against Jucca Company, a partnership, Frank Castagna, Castagna Realty Co., Inc., Rita Castagna, Catherine Castagna LaBianca, and Robert Ronzoni, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, finding triable issues of fact regarding the provision and use of safety devices for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and concluding that the Industrial Code provisions cited for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim were inapplicable to the facts of the case.

personal injuryconstruction accidentLabor Lawsummary judgmentelevation hazardsafety devicesproximate causeappellate reviewIndustrial Code
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06968 [188 AD3d 614]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2020

Pina v. Arthur Clinton Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

Plaintiff Mario Ortiz Pina appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The claim was based on an alleged violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (d) due to a slippery worksite condition. The motion was denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County, because the plaintiff's own conflicting accounts of the accident, along with witness testimony and inconsistent Workers' Compensation Board submissions, raised a triable issue of fact regarding the cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the conflicting evidence precluded summary judgment and necessitated a trial to determine how the accident occurred and whether a wet surface was a proximate cause.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSlip and FallConflicting TestimonyInconsistent AccountsProximate CauseWorkers' CompensationMedical RecordsHearsay
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04577
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

The plaintiff, New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust (NYBOCT), appealed an order that denied its motion to amend the complaint to add individual defendants and new causes of action. NYBOCT had originally sued its insurance broker and third-party administrators for alleged mishandling of a workers' compensation claim, which resulted in a denial of excess coverage. The Supreme Court had previously dismissed all but the breach of contract claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the motion to amend, citing the plaintiff's extended delay, lack of reasonable excuse, the prejudice to the defendants, and the determination that the proposed amendments were patently devoid of merit.

Insurance BrokerThird-Party AdministratorBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyPleading AmendmentFaithless Agent DoctrineWorkers' CompensationExcess CoverageAppellate ReviewDelay
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 97 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