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

Dempsey v. City of Troy

A firefighter, injured in 1965, was placed on disability in 1973. An application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied due to late notice. In 1983, after being ordered to light duty, the firefighter requested and was approved for retirement. Subsequently, the firefighter sued the employer for negligence in failing to file the accident notice and for improper termination of full salary under General Municipal Law § 207-a. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for both parties and converted the negligence claim to a declaratory judgment action. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, ruling that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action in negligence and that a material issue of fact regarding the voluntariness of the firefighter's retirement precluded summary judgment on benefits entitlement.

Firefighter DisabilityGeneral Municipal LawRetirement BenefitsSummary Judgment AppealDeclaratory Judgment ConversionNegligence ClaimVoluntary RetirementAccidental Disability RetirementTimely NoticeLight Duty Assignment
References
6
Case No. ADJ8984848, ADJ8981790, ADJ8982096
Regular
Sep 23, 2016

Alma Vasquez vs. Paper Source Converting and Manufacturing, Inc., Paper Source Converting, Employers Management Services, Granite State Insurance, Amtrust

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by applicant Alma Vasquez. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal. The applicant's contentions regarding improper trial setting and inclusion of indispensable parties were found to be without merit. Therefore, the petition was denied as removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted.

RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessPQMEToxic Exposure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1987

In re the Claim of Rappaport

Claimant, a firefighter, sustained a broken wrist off-duty and was unable to work for approximately one year. After exhausting sick leave, he applied for unemployment insurance benefits, which the local office deemed him eligible for. The employer objected, arguing he was not totally unemployed while still on payroll due to converted vacation time used as sick leave. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, ruling that the converted sick leave did not constitute remuneration under Labor Law § 517 (2) (a), making the claimant eligible. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it rational and supported by substantial evidence regarding claimant's availability for light-duty employment.

unemployment insurance benefitssick leavevacation time conversiontotal unemploymentremunerationfirefighter injurylight duty availabilitycollective bargaining agreementadministrative law judgeappellate review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1978

National Cement Co. v. Mead Corp.

Plaintiff National Cement Company, Inc. ("National") filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, which defendant The Mead Corporation ("Mead") moved to vacate. The court examined whether Mead had served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, which would preclude voluntary dismissal under F.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i). It was determined that a portion of Mead's Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, concerning reimbursement for litigation expenses and supported by external documents, effectively converted into a motion for summary judgment. Consequently, the court ruled that National was not entitled to a voluntary dismissal. Mead's motion to vacate the dismissal was granted, and the case will proceed with further arguments on the converted summary judgment motion.

Voluntary DismissalMotion to VacateFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 41(a)(1)(i)Rule 12(b)Summary JudgmentSubject-Matter JurisdictionIndispensable PartyAntitrust ActionsIndemnification
References
8
Case No. ADJ3416937 (SRO 0141443) ADJ4476347 (SRO 0118020)
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

TIMOTHY ROBINSON vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns apportionment of permanent disability for an injured correctional officer. The applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his neck, resulting in a 12% permanent disability after initial apportionment. The WCJ calculated a total permanent disability of 43%, then apportioned 20% to non-industrial factors under Labor Code section 4663. Further apportionment occurred for a prior low back injury under Labor Code section 4664, using a converted rating from the old schedule to the new AMA Guides. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding no prohibition against applying both section 4663 and section 4664 apportionment, and deeming the prior injury properly converted and subtracted. A dissenting opinion argued that the older rating schedule's "overlap" concept is incompatible with the current AMA Guides method, and that the defendant failed to prove overlap for the prior injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of SonomaTimothy RobinsonCorrectional OfficerIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Labor Code Section 4664
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baten v. Northfork Bancorporation, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Northfork Bancorporation, Inc. and Capital One Financial Corporation, N.A. (collectively, Capital One) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The order granted summary judgment to Riggs Construction Company, Inc., dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, and denied Capital One's cross-motion to convert their cross claims into a third-party action. The appellate court determined that the Supreme Court erred in giving preclusive effect to a Workers' Compensation Board's finding that Riggs was the plaintiff's employer. This was because Capital One was not in privity with Riggs and was not given an opportunity to litigate the employer issue in the prior workers' compensation proceedings. Consequently, the appellate order reversed the lower court's decision, denying Riggs's motion for summary judgment on Capital One’s cross claims for contribution and common-law indemnification, and granting Capital One's cross-motion to convert these cross claims into a third-party action.

Workers' CompensationCollateral EstoppelPrivitySummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuryEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ProcedureContributionIndemnification
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Joseph Ciffa, a carpenter, sustained personal injuries while working for The John Cowper Co., Inc. on a construction project, leading him to sue Jewish Federation Housing Development Fund Company, Inc. and H. J. Mye Lumber Corporation for negligence and Labor Law violations. Jewish Federation subsequently filed a third-party action against Cowper for indemnification. The parties settled, with Cowper agreeing to pay $166,500 in addition to workers' compensation benefits. Following this, the trial court converted the action into one for declaratory judgment to determine the obligations of Cowper's insurers, Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Co. and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., directing Aetna to pay the settlement and reimburse Lumberman’s. On appeal, the judgment was unanimously vacated because the trial court erred in converting the action into a declaratory judgment without proper pleadings or the insurers being parties to the original lawsuit, thereby creating a new action based on insufficient oral stipulations, which is not permitted under CPLR.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance Policy InterpretationWorkers' CompensationNegligenceCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCPLR ProcedurePleadingsOral StipulationsAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Ass'n of Uptown Converters, Inc. & Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union

This case concerns an application for an injunction to stay action related to the designation of employer representatives for a security fund. The fund, contributed to by employers in contractual relations with Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, provides employee benefits. Following the Taft-Hartley Law, which mandates equal representation in fund administration, trustees devised an election method for employer representatives. The petitioner employer association, dissatisfied with this method, demanded arbitration. The petitioner sought an injunction to halt the election process until arbitration concluded. The court, presided by Pecora, J., denied the application, citing a lack of legal warrant for such a procedure in a special arbitration proceeding and finding no irreparable injury would result from the election proceeding.

labour lawinjunctionarbitrationTaft-Hartley Actemployee benefitssecurity fundunion administrationemployer representationCivil Practice Actprocedural law
References
1
Case No. OAK 0343742
Regular
Mar 28, 2008

ELISEO HERNANDEZ vs. GOLDEN WEST PAPER CONVERT, EVEREST NATIONAL, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an award of future medical treatment. The defendant argued the treating physician's report did not support future care, but the judge found the report indicated re-evaluation on an as-needed basis. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that the defendant's own stipulation and the medical evidence supported the award, and any mistake was unilateral on the defendant's part.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for Awardfuture medical careDr. Andrew Steinmedical reportunilateral mistakeCompromise and ReleaseInformation and Assistance Officerpermanent disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ2599827 (LAO 0802863) ADJ3258052 (LAO 0802864) ADJ4519810 (LAO 0802865)
Regular

GONZALO SIS vs. MGM CONVERTERS, INC., EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over contribution between two insurance companies, Everest National Insurance Company and California Indemnity Insurance Company (CIIC), regarding applicant Gonzalo Sis's workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the arbitrator's decision ordering CIIC to reimburse Everest. The WCAB found the record incomplete and lacking substantial evidence, particularly regarding proof of service and the arbitrator's reliance on conflicting medical reports. The matter was returned to the trial level for selection of a new arbitrator and the preparation of a proper record, including clear findings of fact and evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardArbitrationContributionCumulative TraumaCompromise and ReleaseSubstantial EvidenceTimelinessProof of ServiceRecord CompletenessMinutes of Hearing
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 126 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