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

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Molloy v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought performance of duty disability retirement benefits after sustaining multiple left shoulder injuries across several work-related incidents. While the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System conceded permanent disability, the respondent Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the initial June 6, 2008 incident was not the proximate cause of the disability. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with orthopedic surgeon Andrew Beharrie linking the disability to the 2008 incident, while independent medical examiner Bradley Wiener attributed the need for surgical intervention to subsequent incidents in 2009 and 2010. The Hearing Officer and Comptroller credited Wiener's opinion, noting the lack of immediate medical treatment after the first incident and the petitioner's return to full duty. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding it to be supported by rational, fact-based medical opinion and substantial evidence.

Disability RetirementPerformance of DutyCorrection OfficerShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationComptroller's DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. ADJ7505520
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

ALBERT LOBO vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNADINO

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board amended a prior award concerning applicant Albert Lobo's industrial injury. The Board clarified that applicant is entitled to home health care services, including reimbursement for caregiver Halimah Shenghur. However, specific issues regarding the commencement date of liability and reimbursement for certain other individuals are deferred for further development of the record. The Board affirmed the entitlement to services based on a physician's prescription and the caregiver's extensive documented care, while emphasizing the employer's duty to investigate and provide benefits promptly.

Industrial injurybilateral upper extremitiesbilateral lower extremitiesinternal systemsself-procured medical treatmentcaregiver serviceshome health care serviceshome modificationsNeri Hernandezprescription requirement
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05011 [231 AD3d 1262]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

Matter of Lebeau v. Meet Caregivers Inc.

Claimant Okina Lebeau, a certified nurse assistant, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging injuries to her right leg and knee from an assault by a coworker. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the injury did not arise out of employment. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, crediting the coworker's and manager's testimonies over claimant's. The Board determined that no physical altercation occurred and that the claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, a finding supported by substantial evidence.

Employment InjuryAssault ClaimCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardWorkplace IncidentClaimant TestimonyEmployer InvestigationFactual Determination
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aubry v. General Accident Insurance

Aubry Transportation, Inc. hired Wayne Felts to perform welding work, during which Donald Aubry's son lost consciousness due to poisonous fumes, and Aubry subsequently suffered a fatal heart attack. The administratrix of Aubry's estate sued Aubry Transportation, Inc. for negligence. General Accident Insurance, the corporation's insurer, disclaimed coverage and refused to defend, citing policy exclusions for employee injury in the course of employment and obligations under the Workers’ Compensation Law, along with a failure to give prompt notice. The plaintiff then initiated an action seeking a declaration that General Accident had a duty to defend. General Accident appealed from an order denying its motion for summary judgment, with a dissenting opinion arguing that summary judgment should have been granted due to the clear applicability of policy exclusions and the lack of coverage.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionsSummary Judgment AppealEmployer NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusionLate Notice ClaimDeclaratory Relief ActionWrongful DeathWelding Accident
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Portlette v. Toussaint

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action regarding breach of a duty of fair representation, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support the claim. The decision cited several precedents to support the dismissal. Additionally, the plaintiff's other arguments were found to be without merit.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintAppellate AffirmationCivil ProcedureCPLR 3211Rockland CountySupreme CourtSufficiency of Pleadings
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2001

CSEA Local 1000 v. County of Dutchess

The case involves an Article 78 proceeding challenging the County of Dutchess's reclassification of Social Welfare Worker II job duties and seeking an injunction against out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, granted the petition, and this judgment was affirmed on appeal. The court found that the reclassification was not final and binding due to the County's failure to notify affected employees, thus precluding a statute of limitations defense. Additionally, it was determined that the petitioner union had exhausted its contractual remedies, making the proceeding ripe for judicial review.

CPLR Article 78Job ReclassificationOut-of-title WorkStatute of LimitationsExhaustion of RemediesPublic Sector UnionAppellate ReviewDutchess CountyMunicipal LawAdministrative Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,942 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