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. ADJ8406544
Regular
May 26, 2017

TONY BUTLER vs. QUALITY PERSONNEL, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, BAXTER HEALTHCARE, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Baxter Healthcare's petition for reconsideration of a finding that applicant Tony Butler was a special employee of Baxter. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the finding of special employment based on Baxter's significant control over Butler's work, including training, the ability to replace him, and negotiation of his pay rate. Baxter and its carrier, Old Republic, were ordered to administer the claim, with the Board finding that CIGA was not liable due to the existence of other insurance.

Special employeeBorrowing employerControlManner and meansQuality PersonnelBaxter HealthcareOld Republic Insurance CompanyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1983

Baxter v. Fulton Ice & Cube Co.

Raymond Baxter was injured while using an ice bagger machine and sued his employer, Fulton Ice & Cube, and several manufacturers/distributors, including Ohio Gear, Inc. His employer defaulted, leading to an inquest where Baxter was awarded $100,000. Ohio Gear then attempted to limit Baxter's potential recovery against them to this $100,000 by invoking collateral estoppel. Special Term denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the damages vigorously during the inquest against a judgment-proof defendant, therefore the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to cap the recovery against Ohio Gear, Inc.

Collateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionDefault JudgmentInquestDamagesFull and Fair OpportunityJudgment ProofPersonal InjuryManufacturer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04816
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2018

Matter of Baxter (Commissioner of Labor)

Nieama Baxter, a case manager, resigned after 17 months, alleging verbal abuse and harassment, which she claimed caused stress. She applied for unemployment benefits, initially deemed eligible by the Department of Labor, a decision upheld by an Administrative Law Judge. However, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, finding her disqualified for voluntarily leaving employment without good cause. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, noting Baxter's failure to file formal complaints or request a transfer despite being advised, and that her therapist did not recommend she quit.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary ResignationGood CauseSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLabor LawWorkplace HarassmentAdministrative DecisionStress-Related ResignationClaimant Disqualification
References
5
Case No. CA 13-01105
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2014

KALEIDA HEALTH v. UNIVERA HEALTHCARE

This case concerns an appeal by Utica Mutual Insurance Company from a judgment that denied its motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Kaleida Health and Univera Healthcare. The judgment declared Utica obligated to pay an outstanding hospital bill to Kaleida Health. Utica argued that collateral estoppel applied due to a Workers' Compensation Board determination, but the court found Kaleida Health and Univera Healthcare were not parties to that proceeding. Utica also contended the action was barred by arbitration, which was rejected as not compulsory. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding Utica was responsible for the hospital bill as the patient's admission was a continuation of treatment for a work-related injury.

Workers' CompensationHospital BillCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentArbitrationPublic Health LawAppellate PracticeInsurance ObligationWork-Related InjuryHealth Care Provider
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02599 [171 AD3d 1277]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. A&T Healthcare, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board assumed administration of the insolvent Healthcare Providers Self-Insurance Trust, which had a deficit of $132.5 million. The Board initiated an action to recover the deficit from former employer-members, including Motherly Love Home Care Services Inc., who were jointly and severally liable. Motherly Love Home Care Services Inc. executed two settlement agreements but subsequently moved to vacate them, claiming a unilateral mistake by believing they had only signed duplicate copies of one agreement. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no basis for vacating the agreements given their distinct terms and the clear clarifications provided by the Board's counsel.

Workers' Compensation TrustInsolvencySettlement AgreementVacate AgreementUnilateral MistakeJoint and Several LiabilityAppellate ReviewContract PrinciplesHome Health CareEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baxter v. Techtronic Industries Co.

Guard Insurance Group, as the worker's compensation insurer for Scott Baxter, initiated a products liability and negligence action against Techtronie Industries Co., Ltd., and other defendants. Guard, acting as the assignee of Baxter's claims under N.Y. Workers' Compensation Law § 29(2), sought reimbursement for insurance payments made due to severe injuries Baxter sustained from an alleged defective table saw. The defendants moved for dismissal, asserting that Guard lacked a valid assignment and that the statute of limitations had expired. The court ruled that Guard's notice letter to Baxter, referencing Section 29, effectively satisfied the statutory requirements for a valid assignment, even without explicitly using the word 'assignment'. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied, and the court directed the caption to be amended to identify 'Guard Insurance Group, Inc., as assignee of Scott Baxter' as the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationProducts LiabilityNegligenceAssignment of ClaimsStatute of LimitationsNotice RequirementsThird-Party ActionInsurer ReimbursementCaption AmendmentNew York Law
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07224 [165 AD3d 1558]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

Healthcare Professionals Ins. Co. v. Parentis

This case involves an appeal regarding a declaratory judgment action initiated by Healthcare Professionals Insurance Company (HPI) against Michael A. Parentis and others. The dispute arises from a prior medical malpractice verdict against Parentis totaling $8.6 million, which exceeded his combined $2.3 million primary and excess insurance policies from Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC) and HPI. Parentis alleged bad faith against both insurers for failing to settle the underlying action within policy limits. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to HPI and MLMIC, dismissing Parentis' bad faith claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether both HPI and MLMIC acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations, especially during jury deliberations.

Insurance LawBad Faith Insurance ClaimMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSettlement NegotiationsExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceJury DeliberationsDuty to Settle
References
16
Case No. 2013-1418 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2016

Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C. v. Truck Ins. Exch.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County. The Civil Court had granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff, a healthcare provider, sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued that it had properly reimbursed the plaintiff for acupuncture services using the workers' compensation fee schedule applicable to chiropractors. The Appellate Term affirmed the Civil Court's order, concluding that the defendant had timely mailed the denial of claim form and had fully paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services.

No-fault benefitsAcupuncture servicesWorkers' compensation fee scheduleSummary judgmentAppellate reviewTimely mailingDenial of claimFirst-party benefitsInsuranceHealthcare provider
References
2
Case No. 2015-1243 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C. v. Metlife Auto & Home

The case involves Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C., as assignee of Boris Goldbaum, suing Metlife Auto & Home for first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant had paid a reduced sum, arguing the remaining amount exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule and that one claim was subject to a policy deductible. During a nonjury trial, the parties stipulated to the plaintiff's prima facie case and timely denials. The defendant sought judicial notice of the workers' compensation fee schedule but failed to provide a witness to testify on its proper utilization or evidence for the deductible reduction. The Civil Court granted judgment to the plaintiff, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Term, Second Department. The Appellate Term noted that while judicial notice of the fee schedule is permissible, the party seeking it must provide sufficient information and notice to the adverse party, and the fee schedule alone doesn't prove proper utilization of codes or reduction due to a deductible without supporting evidence.

No-fault insuranceMedical billing disputeAppellate reviewJudicial noticeBurden of proofFee schedule applicationPolicy deductibleAssigned claimsCivil procedureEvidence admissibility
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

US Healthcare, Inc.(New York) v. O'BRIEN

This action concerns the interpretation of a right of recovery clause in a health benefits plan issued by U.S. Healthcare, Inc. of New York (USH), an ERISA-governed plan. USH sought a declaratory judgment to recover over $1 million in benefits paid for Michael O’Brien's care from a medical malpractice settlement. USH moved for summary judgment against the O’Briens and other defendants, arguing its right to recover from the settlement regardless of allocation. The defendants, including Michael O'Brien's parents and their law firm, contended that the settlement with Dr. Robbins was for pain and suffering, not medical services, and thus USH had no right of recovery under its plan's specific terms or unjust enrichment. The court denied USH's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motions in part, finding that USH failed to prove the settlement included payment for medical services provided by USH, and dismissed claims for future declaratory relief as premature.

ERISAHealth Benefits PlanRight of Recovery ClauseSubrogationMedical Malpractice SettlementSummary JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Source RuleDeclaratory JudgmentContract Interpretation
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 208 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