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. 772 F.Supp. 1412
Regular Panel Decision

Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters v. New York

Defendant Crosson moved for an order clarifying an August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment, which implemented a Second Circuit mandate declaring New York's lag-payroll law unconstitutional. Crosson argued that the Judgment enjoined the law's application to both unrepresented and represented employees, while State Defendants maintained it covered only represented employees. The Court acknowledged the Second Circuit's focus on represented employees due to contractual impairment but clarified its own Order and Judgment to include all employees, finding the lag-payroll statute non-severable. The Court reasoned that severing the statute to apply only to unrepresented employees would significantly alter the original legislative intent, reducing the expected savings by 90%. Consequently, the Court granted Crosson's motion, clarifying that the August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment applies to both unrepresented and represented employees.

Lag Payroll LawContract ClauseUnited States ConstitutionSecond Circuit MandateDeclaratory JudgmentRestitution of WagesSeverability of StatuteLegislative IntentUnrepresented EmployeesRepresented Employees
References
11
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2011

Johnson v. Del Valle

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment in a personal injury action where a plaintiff was injured by a co-employee. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The appellate court reversed this decision, denying the motion and reinstating the complaint. The court clarified that the workers' compensation exclusivity provision for co-employees only applies if the defendant was acting within the scope of employment and not engaged in a willful tort. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant's actions, which were neither common nor condoned in the workplace, fell within the scope of employment.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentScope of EmploymentCo-employee liabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of FactWillful or Intentional TortBaseball injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Christey v. Gelyon

A plaintiff sued a co-employee defendant for injuries sustained during alleged horseplay. The defendant asserted a Workers' Compensation Law defense, claiming the suit was barred because the parties were co-employees. Special Term initially struck this defense and denied summary judgment for the defendant. On appeal, the order was modified; the affirmative defense was reinstated, and the order, as modified, was affirmed. The court clarified that injuries from co-employee horseplay can be compensable, but an action against a co-employee might be permissible if the conduct was excessive or occurred outside the scope of employment after horseplay terminated. A question of fact remained regarding whether the acts occurred within the scope of the defendant's employment.

Workers' CompensationCo-employee LiabilityHorseplayScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryIntentional ActsExclusivity of Remedy
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hirsch v. Mastroianni

In a wrongful death action, the plaintiff, Hirsch's widow, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The lower court dismissed the complaint, ruling the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (subd 6), and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to dismiss this affirmative defense. The factual background involved co-employees Hirsch and Di Stefano, where Di Stefano shot Hirsch to death and then committed suicide. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that Di Stefano was not acting within the scope of his employment, thus making the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision inapplicable. Citing Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., the court clarified that the law does not bar tort actions against co-employees for acts outside the scope of employment or for intentional torts, and an insane person is liable for their torts.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee LiabilityScope of EmploymentIntentional TortNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyCPLR 3211
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobsen v. Amedio

Plaintiff Blondelle C. Jacobsen and her husband initiated legal action to recover damages after plaintiff's vehicle was struck from behind by defendant's vehicle. Upon discovering that plaintiff's medical expenses and lost wages were partially covered by workers' compensation benefits, the defendant attempted to amend her answer. The proposed amendment aimed to introduce an affirmative defense based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), arguing that workers' compensation should serve as the exclusive remedy, given that both parties were State employees involved in an accident near their workplace. The Supreme Court denied this motion, prompting the defendant to appeal. The appellate court upheld the denial, clarifying that the exclusive remedy provision only applies if the co-employee (defendant) was also acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the incident. The court determined that the defendant was not acting within the scope of her employment during her commute from a parking lot after work, thus affirming the lower court's decision.

auto accidentworkers' compensationscope of employmentexclusive remedyaffirmative defenseappealdenied motioncommuting ruleco-employee liabilitystate workers
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. Miller

In this consolidated appeal involving two personal injury actions, Giles v Yi and Hamilton v Miller, the New York Court of Appeals addressed the scope of medical report disclosure under 22 NYCRR 202.17(b)(1). Plaintiffs, alleging lead-based paint exposure during childhood caused numerous injuries, were ordered by Supreme Court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, to produce new medical reports detailing diagnoses and causal links to lead exposure prior to defense medical examinations. The Court of Appeals ruled this was an abuse of discretion, stating plaintiffs only need to produce existing reports from treating or examining providers, but these reports must contain the required diagnostic and prognostic information. The Court clarified that requiring new reports solely for litigation or mandating causation at this early discovery stage exceeded the rule's scope. It also denied a motion for judicial notice of federal lead-based paint findings as these are not 'law' under CPLR 4511. The orders were modified and affirmed, with remittal to Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Lead Poisoning LitigationDiscovery ProceduresMedical Report DisclosureCausation EvidencePreclusion OrdersBills of Particulars AmendmentJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesCode of Rules and Regulations of New York
References
21
Case No. VNO 536198
Regular
Apr 07, 2008

JUAN ALVAREZ vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; c/o SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order denying their motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. This decision was based on the absence of the subpoena itself in the case file, preventing the Board from understanding the scope of the requested documents or the parties' arguments. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to obtain necessary documentation and clarify the issues.

Petition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumQuashOverbroadVagueAmbiguousOppressiveBurdensomePrivacyConfidentiality
References
0
Case No. ADJ3792880
Regular
Oct 06, 2008

Miguel G. Flores vs. BBSI/SABROSO; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by PINNACLE RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer the issue of temporary disability benefits for Miguel G. Flores. Although Flores was terminated for cause, medical evidence indicated he was temporarily totally disabled due to his industrial injury, necessitating further proceedings. The Board remanded the case to determine entitlement to temporary total disability benefits and clarify the industrial injury scope.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Total DisabilityModified DutyTermination for CauseMedical EvaluatorsIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationFindings and AwardTrial LevelQME Report
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Albrecht v. Orange County Community College

The Appellate Division's order was affirmed, upholding the board's denial of benefits. The board based its decision on the claimant's failure to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish accidental causation. The court clarified that the board's statement regarding the absence of medical evidence pertained only to the issue of causation, not the scope of employment. The court found no legal error in the board's factual determination, thus declining to disturb its decision.

denial of benefitsaccidental causationmedical evidencescope of employmentAppellate Divisionfactual determinationmatter of law
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,375 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