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. 2017 NY Slip Op 06827
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2017

Matter of Bob Bruno Excavating, Inc. v. Reardon

The petitioners, Bob Bruno Excavating, Inc., commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, seeking to annul a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, Roberta Reardon. The Commissioner's determination found that the petitioners had underpaid their workers on several public works projects. The Appellate Division dismissed the petition, ruling that a party cannot seek review of an administrative determination made on their default. The court stated that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to apply to the Commissioner of Labor to reopen the administrative hearing or vacate the default.

CPLR Article 78Administrative LawJudicial ReviewDefault JudgmentLabor LawPublic WorksUnderpayment of WagesAppellate DivisionAnnulment PetitionRemedy for Default
References
6
Case No. OAK 242409, OAK 242410
Regular
Nov 11, 2008

TINA CHASE vs. BOB'S FOAM FACTORY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

The WCAB granted reconsideration, affirming the applicant's award for acupuncture treatment as recommended by Dr. Lin. However, the Board denied attorney fees under Labor Code sections 5814 and 5814.5 due to the defendant's arguments regarding delay and date of injury applicability. The issue of attorney fees under Labor Code section 4607 was deferred pending California Supreme Court decisions addressing similar attorney fee disputes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBob's Foam FactoryCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationSuperior National Insurance CompanyBroadspirePetition for ReconsiderationAcupuncture TreatmentDr. LinLabor Code section 5814.5Attorney Fees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. 14 West Garment Factory Corp.

This case concerns a special proceeding initiated by Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, seeking injunctive relief against apparel manufacturers and contractors, 14 West Garment Factory Corp. and Ding and Mag Fashion, Inc. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were producing and selling 'hot goods' in violation of Labor Law articles 6 and 19, pertaining to wage payment and minimum wage. The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order, and the current opinion addresses the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction and 14 West's cross-motion to dismiss. Justice Alice Schlesinger granted the preliminary injunction and denied the motion to dismiss, affirming the strict liability of manufacturers and contractors under the 'hot goods' law, distinct from retailers who have a good-faith exception. The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the statute to protect workers from underpayment and to prevent illicit profits from illegal labor.

Injunctive ReliefLabor Law ViolationsHot GoodsWage TheftMinimum WageApparel IndustryStrict LiabilityStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawRegulatory Enforcement
References
4
Case No. ADJ744923 (ANA 0385182)
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

CHARLES BUFFINGTON III vs. FACTORY MUTUAL, INFRARED TESTING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

Factory Mutual seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision finding Liberty Mutual provided coverage for Infrared Testing, Inc. during the applicant's injury period. Factory admits it sold its interest in Infrared before the cumulative injury period, arguing Liberty's coverage stipulation was a mistake. The Board dismissed Factory's petition, finding Factory lacks standing as it had no interest in the employer after August 2, 2000. The Board also indicated it would have denied the petition on the merits due to Liberty's stipulation and the elapsed premium collection period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersStipulationCoverage disputeMistake in coverageSale of interestUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundStandingAggrieved party
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03610
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Matter of Quoma v. Bob's Discount Furniture

The Appellate Division, Third Department, heard an appeal from Joseph Quoma challenging decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding credits for temporary disability payments and the application of the safety valve provision under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w). The court affirmed that the carrier's credit against maximum benefits for payments beyond 130 weeks from the accident date is a strict time measurement, not dependent on 130 weeks of prior payments. However, the court reversed and remitted the Board's amended decision regarding the safety valve provision, finding that the Board erred by solely considering the absence of a specific form (C-4.3) and failing to consider other medical evidence, such as preauthorized surgery, when determining if the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). The case was remitted for a new determination consistent with the court's decision on the safety valve factors.

Workers' Compensation LawTemporary Disability BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityStatutory CapSafety Valve ProvisionMaximum Medical ImprovementJudicial ReviewAdministrative BurdenAppellate DivisionRemittal
References
7
Case No. ADJ9207015
Regular
Jul 31, 2014

ALEJANDRO NORIEGA vs. THE CHESECAKE FACTORY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Alejandro Noriega's petition for reconsideration regarding a denied claim for self-procured chiropractic care. The Board adopted the Judge's report, finding that while employer notices regarding the Medical Provider Network (MPN) were ineffective, this did not automatically authorize self-procured treatment. Treatment was provided promptly after the admitted injury, and there was no evidence of a delay or refusal of care that would justify the applicant treating outside the MPN.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeMedical Provider NetworkMPNExpedited Hearingchiropractic careself-procured treatmentRequest for AuthorizationIndependent Medical Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Indian Harbor Insurance v. Factory Mutual Insurance

The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania ("Penn") and Indian Harbor Insurance Company ("Indian Harbor") sued Factory Mutual Insurance Company ("FM") seeking a declaratory judgment regarding insurance coverage for damages Penn sustained at its veterinary hospital due to a Salmonella outbreak. FM moved to transfer the venue from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, citing convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The Court considered factors such as the locus of operative facts being in Pennsylvania, the convenience of key witnesses like FM's adjuster, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's familiarity with the governing law and lighter docket. The Court ultimately granted FM's motion, finding that the balance of factors strongly favored transferring the case.

Venue TransferDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeProperty LossSalmonella OutbreakVeterinary HospitalForum Selection ClauseChoice of LawJudicial EconomyInter-district Transfer
References
46
Case No. ADJ8753985; ADJ8753959
Regular
Dec 02, 2015

BOB BORBECK vs. ACE BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns a dispute over a workers' compensation lien filed by the Employment Development Department (EDD). The defendant, Ace Building Maintenance, settled a workers' compensation claim via Compromise and Release (C&R) with the applicant, Bob Borbeck, while aware of EDD's lien for unemployment benefits that duplicated temporary disability payments. The defendant argues they provided sufficient notice to EDD regarding benefit payments and should not be liable for the lien. However, the Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding them liable for EDD's lien because they settled the case without resolving it, thus agreeing to pay any subsequently determined amount.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseEDD LienUnemployment Compensation BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsLabor Code Section 4904Notice of Lien ClaimDuplicate Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meadows v. PLANET AID, INC.

Plaintiff, Bob Meadows, a 64-year-old African-American and Native-American former trucker, sued his ex-employer Planet Aid, Inc., and supervisors Rodney Carter and Jostein Pedersen, alleging age and race discrimination, FLSA and NYSHRL violations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, retaliation, whistleblower violations, hostile work environment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted dismissal for NYSHRL, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, Title VII retaliation, N.Y. Labor Law § 740 whistleblower, and emotional distress claims. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for age and race discrimination, FLSA, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation claims, allowing them to proceed.

Age DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActNew York State Human Rights LawBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawPleading Standards
References
32
Case No. No. 201
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2011

Matter of Parkhurst v. United Rentals Aerial Equipment, Inc.

This case involves two consolidated appeals concerning claims filed by Bob Parkhurst and James Arthur Robinson. Both claims are against their respective employers, United Rentals Aerial Equipment, Inc. and Gould Pumps ITT, and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Court of Appeals of New York reviewed the claims and ultimately affirmed the previous order. The decision references a related case, Matter of Raynor v Landmark Chrysler, decided on the same day.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsAppellate AffirmationNew York Court of AppealsConsolidated CasesEmployer LiabilityGovernment Agency RespondentJudicial ConcurrenceLegal PrecedentOpinion of the Court
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 104 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