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
Mar 15, 1994

Avalanche Wrecking Corp. v. New York State Insurance Fund

National Union Fire Insurance Company and Avalanche Wrecking Corp. initiated a declaratory judgment action against the New York State Insurance Fund, seeking reimbursement for defense costs and damages. This stemmed from Avalanche employees' injuries, leading to lawsuits against Republic National Bank of New York (an additional insured under National Union's policy) and third-party claims against Avalanche. National Union, having defended both Republic and Avalanche, sought to recover from State Fund, Avalanche's workers' compensation carrier. The IAS Court initially denied State Fund's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to State Fund. The reversal was based on the anti-subrogation rule, which precludes an insurer from pursuing a subrogated claim against its own insured, citing a potential conflict of interest from representing multiple parties under the same risk.

Insurance DisputeSubrogationAnti-Subrogation RuleSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityAdditional InsuredContractual ObligationIndemnification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 1996

Campanella v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital

Plaintiff Peter Campanella, a construction laborer, was injured while loading timbers into a dumpster at a building owned by St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital. He was standing in the dumpster, and timbers were being handed down from an 8 to 12 foot elevation without safety devices. He fell while trying to control a particularly heavy timber, injuring his back. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to St. Luke's and Avalanche Wrecking Corp., dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against them, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the court modified the decision, finding St. Luke’s liable as the owner under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the lack of safety devices for work performed at an elevation, irrespective of supervision. However, the dismissal of the claim against Avalanche Wrecking Corp. was affirmed because plaintiffs failed to show Avalanche supervised the task.

Construction AccidentLabor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentElevation RiskStatutory LiabilityOwner LiabilityAgent LiabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. ADJ9113575
Regular
Jul 26, 2018

DOUGLAS FAVELL vs. COLORADO ROCKIES/NEW JERSEY DEVILS, TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS, PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, OKLAHOMA CITY BLAZERS, SAN FRANCISCO SEALS, PINNACOL ASSURANCE

This case involved a professional hockey player's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained across multiple teams from 1965-1979. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Toronto Maple Leafs' petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that the Colorado Rockies, and their insurer Pinnacol Assurance, were exempt from California workers' compensation laws under Labor Code section 3600.5(b) due to reciprocal exemptions with Colorado law at the time of employment. Consequently, Toronto was held liable as the next employer over which California had jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryProfessional Hockey PlayerPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600.5(b)Labor Code Section 5500.5(a)ExemptedReciprocal StatuteColorado Revised Statute
References
3
Case No. ADJ8710981
Regular
Mar 25, 2015

PETER FORSBERG vs. NASHVILLE PREDATORS, COLORADO AVALANCHE, PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reinstated and affirmed its jurisdiction over Peter Forsberg's cumulative injury claim. The WCAB found that California has a legitimate and substantial interest in adjudicating claims for injuries sustained within the state, and Forsberg's work in California was more than "de minimis" to his cumulative trauma injury. This decision reversed a prior ruling that had denied jurisdiction, finding that the defendant did not prove statutory exemption and that due process concerns were not violated. The case was returned for further proceedings, with a dissenting opinion arguing that Forsberg's limited California contacts were insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

Cumulative injuryProfessional hockey playerWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardJurisdictionFederal Insurance CompanyColorado AvalancheNashville PredatorsPhiladelphia FlyersDe minimis connectionLegitimate interest
References
23
Case No. 06 Civ. 0703(NRB)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2007

Colorado-Arkansas-Texas Distributing, L.L.C. v. American Eagle Food Products, Inc.

This Memorandum Opinion addresses cross-motions for summary judgment concerning an arbitration award between American Eagle Food Products, Inc. (AEF) and Colorado-Arkansas-Texas Distributing, L.L.C. (CAT). AEF sought to confirm an arbitration award against CAT, which argued it had never agreed to arbitrate. The Court analyzed the enforceability of arbitration clauses included in AEF's sales orders, which confirmed prior oral agreements, under Section 2-207 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code. Considering the parties' merchant status, their course of dealing, industry custom, and CAT's failure to timely object, the Court determined that the arbitration clauses did not materially alter the agreements and were binding. Consequently, the Court granted AEF's petition to confirm the arbitration award and denied CAT's petition to stay arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementContract FormationUCC Article 2-207Merchant PracticeCourse of DealingTrade UsageSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActCommercial Dispute
References
24
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04174
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2025

Matter of Black

Attorney Bernard S. Black was disbarred for professional misconduct. Serving as conservator for his sister, who suffers from chronic schizophrenia, Black attempted to divert approximately $1 million from their mother's estate to himself and his children by deliberately withholding information from the Colorado Probate Court. The Colorado courts found he breached his fiduciary duties, engaged in deceptive conduct, and committed civil theft, imposing substantial surcharges and treble damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the Special Referee's findings that Black violated professional conduct rules, including dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, making false statements to a tribunal, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Despite his claims of good faith and character evidence, the court found disbarment necessary due to the severe nature of his actions against a vulnerable family member.

Attorney MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsDisbarmentFiduciary Duty BreachConflict of InterestFraud and DeceitFalse Statements to TribunalConservatorshipEstate DiversionCivil Theft
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dean v. Crane

Petitioner Deborah Dean moved to vacate a Queens County Family Court order granting custody of her daughter, Robin, to respondent George Crane, seeking to reinstate a prior Colorado District Court order or refer the matter to Colorado. The Queens Order was issued on default after the father alleged the mother exposed Robin to domestic violence and instability. This court determined that the Queens Family Court had 'emergency jurisdiction' to issue its order, despite potential issues with the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act (PKPA) due to the mother's failure to raise the issue earlier. However, considering the default nature of the Queens Order and the mother's alleged recovery, the court directed a plenary fact-finding hearing based on the 'best interests' of the child. The court also ruled that this hearing should take place in New York, as Robin has resided with her father there for nearly two years.

Child CustodyFamily LawSubject Matter JurisdictionEmergency JurisdictionUniform Child Custody Jurisdiction ActParental Kidnaping Prevention ActDefault JudgmentBest Interests of the ChildInterstate Custody DisputeVacatur of Order
References
10
Case No. ADJ6653777
Regular
Jan 26, 2011

MARIA COLORADO vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns an applicant who sustained an industrial injury to her right elbow, with the primary dispute revolving around the permanent and stationary (P&S) date and subsequent credit for overpaid temporary disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, overturning the original decision. The WCAB found the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary on June 8, 2009, based on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) report, not March 1, 2009, as previously determined. Consequently, the defendant is not entitled to a credit for overpaid temporary disability indemnity, as the applicant was unable to return to work until released by her physician.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent and Stationary DateTemporary Disability IndemnityCredit for OverpaymentReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJTreating PhysicianReturn to Work Release
References
6
Case No. ADJ9531454 MF ADJ9531455
Regular
Dec 03, 2018

MOHAMMAD MORADI vs. NORTHWEST COLORADO TRANSPORT, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the finding of subject matter jurisdiction, determining that the applicant's contract of hire was concluded in North Dakota, not California, as per the written employment agreement signed there. Consequently, the WCAB lacks jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305, which require the contract of hire to be made in California for out-of-state injuries. The WCAB's decision was influenced by the appellate court's ruling in *Tripplett*, which emphasized that a written employment contract signed out-of-state supersedes earlier oral agreements for jurisdictional purposes. As a result, the applicant will take nothing on his claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionContract of HireConditions SubsequentGeneral AppearanceWaiverLabor Code Section 5305Industrial InjuryNorth Dakota
References
15
Case No. ADJ9758588
Regular
Jul 15, 2018

JARED CLARK vs. COLORADO ROCKIES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision. The Board found that while the applicant sustained work-related injuries and received treatment, his claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because it was filed within five years of the last medical treatment. Crucially, the Board agreed that the applicant did not receive adequate notice of his workers' compensation rights, particularly regarding cumulative trauma injuries. Therefore, the Board adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and recommendation to deny the petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJcredibility determinationStatute of Limitationsmedical treatmentnotice of rightscumulative traumaapplication for adjudication of claimprofessional baseball player
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 16 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