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. 2020 NY Slip Op 01869 [181 AD3d 1113]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Perry v. All Am. Sch. Bus Corp.

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Diane Perry, a school bus attendant, sustained multiple injuries when she was struck by a motor vehicle while waiting for her assigned bus. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found that her injuries arose from an accident in the course of her employment and made awards. The employer and its carrier appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied because they failed to completely answer question 15 on the RB-89 form, which required specifying the objection and when it was interposed, as mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1) and (2) (ii). The Board upheld this denial, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both the Board's decision and amended decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's enforcement of its procedural rules.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAdministrative ReviewApplication DenialRegulatory ComplianceAppellate ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeScope of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentInjury CompensationBoard Discretion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02521 [227 AD3d 776]
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2024

Dolores v. Grandpa's Bus Co., Inc.

Cleotilde Dolores, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries when her school bus was struck from the rear by another school bus owned by Grandpa's Bus Co., Inc., and driven by Samuel Bercy. She subsequently filed a personal injury action against the defendants. The defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the parties shared a special employment relationship with nonparty Logan Bus Payroll Systems, Inc., which would invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law and bar the action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendants' motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden to establish the existence of such a special employment relationship.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Employment RelationshipEmployer LiabilityBus AccidentRear-End CollisionAppellate PracticePrima Facie BurdenKings County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1987

Madarash v. Long Island Rail Road Co.

Plaintiffs, employees of the Long Island Rail Road Company (LIRR), initially sued LIRR under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for injuries sustained in a 1983 collision. Subsequently, Green Bus Lines, Inc. (Green Bus) was added as a defendant through an amended complaint, following indications that a Green Bus vehicle caused the accident. Green Bus successfully moved to dismiss these claims, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the absence of "serious injuries" under New York's No-Fault Law. However, the court allowed the LIRR to implead Green Bus and for plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint, re-asserting state law claims against Green Bus. Green Bus then moved to dismiss this Second Amended Complaint on grounds of subject matter jurisdiction and the statute of limitations. The court denied both motions, affirming its pendant-party jurisdiction and ruling that the action was timely under New York's savings statute, N.Y.Civ.Prac.Law § 205(a). The court also critically noted Green Bus's significant delay in challenging jurisdiction, suggesting potential sanctions for needlessly incurred jury selection expenses.

FELAPendant JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAmended ComplaintFederal Civil ProcedureNew York LawCourt DelaySanctionsPersonal Injury
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lomuscio v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Claimant, a bus driver, sustained work-related neck and back injuries in 1993 and 1994, for which she received workers' compensation benefits. She later experienced increased neck discomfort in August 1996 and, in November 1996, while operating a bus, heard a popping sound in her neck, leading to excruciating pain, with a subsequent MRI revealing disc herniations and neuroforaminal stenosis. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board concluded her partial disability stemmed from a "new accident" in November 1996, not an exacerbation of prior injuries, and denied continuing benefits. On appeal, the Court found insufficient evidence to solely attribute the partial disability to the November 1996 accident, noting prior medical findings consistent with degenerative changes before the November incident. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings to determine the causation of her partial disability.

Workers' CompensationPartial DisabilityWork-Related InjuryBus DriverNeck InjuryBack InjuryMRI StudyDisc HerniationNeuroforaminal StenosisOsteophyte
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Life & Accident Co. v. Wade

This case involves an appeal by the Home Life & Accident Company from an award of the Industrial Accident Board in favor of C. Wade. Wade, an an employee of A. C. MacParlane, sustained injuries while loading steel cranes onto a barge in the navigable Sabine River. The central legal question was whether Wade's maritime injury fell under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law or the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts. The trial court initially awarded compensation to Wade under state law. However, the appellate court, citing various U.S. Supreme Court precedents and an Attorney General's opinion, concluded that maritime injuries are subject to federal admiralty law, thus precluding state workers' compensation jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the appellate court ruled in favor of the Home Life & Accident Company.

Admiralty lawMaritime jurisdictionWorkers' compensationFederal preemptionState lawInjury at workNavigable watersLongshoremanSabine RiverEmployer liability
References
5
Case No. 03-10-00768-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2011

Tau Kappa Epsilon and Adam Wilson Fomby v. USA Bus Charter, Inc.

Appellants Tau Kappa Epsilon and Adam Wilson Fomby sued USA Bus Charter, Inc. over problems with chartered buses, including deceptive pricing, late arrivals, and insufficient seating, which initially led to a no-answer default judgment against USA Bus. The district court subsequently granted USA Bus's motion for a new trial, set aside the default judgment, and compelled arbitration, dismissing the suit. Appellants appealed these rulings, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in granting the new trial and enforcing the arbitration agreement. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that USA Bus's corporate counsel's mistake of law regarding Arizona procedural rules constituted a sufficient excuse under the Craddock elements to justify a new trial. Furthermore, the court determined that the appellants' challenges to the arbitration agreement (illusoriness and unconscionability) were broad contract challenges that must be decided by an arbitrator, and upheld the requirement for arbitration in Maricopa County, Arizona, under Arizona law.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActChoice of LawForum Selection ClauseCraddock ElementsConscious IndifferenceMistake of LawMeritorious Defense
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06350 [188 AD3d 415]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2020

Goldwire v. New York City Tr. Auth.

The plaintiff, Fantansia Goldwire, was injured when her car collided with a bus. Plaintiff and a co-worker claimed the bus struck her car while she was exiting a parking space, with the bus traveling at a high speed and crossing a double yellow line. The bus driver asserted that the plaintiff's car hit the bus. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing their negligence was not the proximate cause based on an accident reconstruction expert's analysis, which claimed the accident could not have occurred as the plaintiff described. The court denied the defendants' motion, finding material issues of fact, noting that the expert did not rule out the bus driver's negligence. Additionally, the court found issues of fact regarding the causal relationship between the accident and the plaintiff's injuries, based on her treating physicians' opinions and no-fault examinations.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceProximate CauseAccident ReconstructionMaterial Issues of FactMedical CausationTreating PhysiciansNo-Fault ExaminationsAppellate ReviewCar Collision
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,938 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