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
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forrester v. Corizon Health, Inc.

Plaintiff Bernice Forrester initially filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer, Prison Health Services, Inc., and its successor, Corizon Health, Inc., alleging violations of the ADA, ADEA, FMLA, and NYCHRL. The federal court dismissed her federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over her NYCHRL claims. Subsequently, Forrester refiled her NYCHRL claims in New York State court, which were then removed to federal court by Corizon Health, Inc. Corizon moved for summary judgment, asserting that the prior federal judgment precluded Forrester from re-litigating issues of discriminatory and retaliatory intent. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, ruling that the issues regarding discriminatory and retaliatory intent had been fully and fairly litigated in the previous federal action, thus preventing their re-assertion under NYCHRL. The court also found insufficient evidence to support a new retaliation claim related to Forrester's 2010 termination.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)Summary JudgmentIssue PreclusionCollateral EstoppelDisability DiscriminationRetaliation
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. ADJ6502775, ADJ6498620, ADJ8109003, ADJ8115890
Regular
May 09, 2014

MARIA POHYAR vs. DEY LP, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the challenged order was not a "final order" subject to reconsideration. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that the issue of whether the defendant Zurich is entitled to a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel was only before the WCJ based on a procedural rule regarding appointment notification forms, not ex parte communications. The WCAB clarified that issues of ex parte communications and the applicability of related statutes and rules were not yet properly before the Board. Therefore, the applicant's request for the WCAB to assert jurisdiction and rule against Zurich on the QME panel issue was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJurisdictionQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel QMEDivision of Workers' Compensation (DWC) RulesLabor Code section 4062.3Ex parte communicationMedical Director
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2001

Claim of Malkin v. Love Taxi, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found an employer-employee relationship between the claimant and Love Taxi, Inc., a finding subsequently affirmed by the Board. Love Taxi, Inc. appealed this decision, challenging the causal relationship between the claimant's alleged employment and injuries, and asserting that the injuries did not constitute an accident. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. The dismissal was based on the fact that the appeal was from an interlocutory Board decision, which neither resolved all substantive issues nor presented a dispositive threshold legal issue. Furthermore, Love Taxi, Inc. failed to address the employment relationship issue in its brief.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealEmployer-Employee RelationshipCausal RelationshipInterlocutory DecisionAppeal DismissalWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial ReviewLabour DisputeMedical Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jensen v. Linde Hydraulics Corp.

Plaintiff Daniel Jensen was injured at work and received a Workers’ Compensation award, listing Illinois Glove Company and Cayadutta Tanning Company, Inc. as employers. Jensen subsequently filed separate negligence actions against both companies. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy, but these motions were denied and affirmed on a prior appeal due to an unresolved factual issue regarding Jensen’s employment status. Cayadutta Tanning Company, Inc. then moved for a severance on the issue of the identity of plaintiff's employer, which was denied by Special Term. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial, finding no abuse of discretion, but emphasized that the employment issue should be tried before all other matters pursuant to CPLR 4011.

SeveranceEmployment StatusWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionFactual IssueAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureTrial OrderJudicial Discretion
References
4
Case No. ADJ12790054
Regular
Aug 11, 2025

THANH DINH vs. HODO INC.; CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant and Defendant both filed Petitions for Reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) issued on May 30, 2025. Applicant contended issues with permanent disability apportionment and inability to compete in the open labor market, seeking 100% disability. Defendant asserted incorrect occupational code and method for combining impairments. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petitions, the WCJ's reports, and the record, noting inconsistencies and a need for further review regarding permanent disability, apportionment under Escobedo v. Marshalls, vocational reporting, and the application of Vigil v. County of Kern regarding impairment combination. Therefore, the Appeals Board granted both petitions and deferred the final decision after reconsideration to allow for a comprehensive review of the factual and legal issues.

Permanent disabilityApportionmentVocational rehabilitationMedical-legal reportsOccupational codeDRE Category IVWhole person impairmentAddition vs. Combination of impairmentsLabor Code section 5909Petition for Reconsideration
References
3
Case No. ADJ17547374
Regular
Oct 16, 2025

WARREN P. HARVEY vs. SOCAL MACHINE, INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered applicant Warren P. Harvey's petition for reconsideration regarding the equitable hourly reimbursement rates for in-home health care provided by his spouse, asserting errors in the WCJ's rate calculation and attorneys' fees. After an unsuccessful settlement conference, the parties filed Stipulations With Request for Award, agreeing to permanent total disability and further medical treatment for the applicant, though these stipulations did not resolve the reconsideration issues. The Board approved these stipulations, finding them adequate and in the applicant's best interest, and issued an award based upon them, which included specific disability indemnity, medical treatment, and attorney's fees. The Board also commended the parties for resolving some important issues and urged them to continue efforts on the remaining disputes.

Equitable hourly reimbursement ratesIn-home health careCaregiver dutiesNursing dutiesCommunity HHC providerPetition for reconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardPermanent total disabilityTemporary disability indemnityAttorneys' fee
References
0
Case No. Index No. 23434/19|Appeal No. 5904|Case No. 2025-00403
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Santacruz v. 58 Gerry St LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order denying defendants' motion to amend their answer, vacate the note of issue, and compel additional discovery. Defendants sought to assert an affirmative defense and counterclaim for fraud based on an unrelated federal RICO complaint alleging a conspiracy by plaintiff's former attorneys and medical providers. The Supreme Court denied the motion to amend and to vacate the note of issue. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order to grant defendants' motion for additional discovery, specifically ordering plaintiff to appear for further deposition regarding the RICO action, without vacating the note of issue, and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's decision. The court reasoned that while the fraud allegations were unproven and insufficient for an affirmative defense, further deposition was warranted.

Fraud AllegationsRICO ActionDiscovery DisputeFurther DepositionMotion to AmendNote of IssueAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseCounterclaimWorkers' Compensation Claims
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engel v. Calgon Corp.

This is a dissenting opinion concerning the applicability of collateral estoppel to administrative determinations. The core issue revolves around whether a prior finding by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that an individual was an 'employee' should preclude the State Division of Human Rights from reaching a different conclusion regarding the same individual's employment status under a different statute. The dissenting judge argues that the issue of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor should be decided under the same general principles, regardless of whether it arises under Labor Law article 18 or Executive Law article 15. Therefore, it is asserted that the issues are identical for collateral estoppel purposes, and the party, Calgon, should be barred from relitigating the employment question. However, the majority confirmed the Division's determination and dismissed the petition, thereby rejecting the dissent's argument for the application of collateral estoppel in this context.

Collateral EstoppelRes JudicataIssue PreclusionAdministrative LawUnemployment InsuranceHuman Rights LawEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorJudicial DissentAgency Determinations
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 10,551 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