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

Podhaskie v. Seventh Chelsea Associates

A judgment entered February 14, 2003, which granted summary judgment to third-party defendant Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Company, Inc. (Regional) dismissing a third-party complaint seeking contractual indemnity, was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the third-party complaint and all cross claims. The case involves an injured carpenter, employed by Regional, who sued the owner (Seventh Chelsea Associates) and construction manager (HRH Construction Corporation) for personal injuries under the Labor Law. These appellants then brought a third-party action against Regional for contractual indemnification. The lower court dismissed this claim, finding no existing contract for indemnity at the time of the accident. However, the appellate court found an issue of fact regarding whether various documents, including a bid proposal, certificate of insurance, and a later formal contract, demonstrated Regional's intent for the indemnification to apply retroactively, thus precluding summary dismissal.

Contractual IndemnitySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintRetroactive ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawAppellate DivisionScaffolding AccidentPersonal InjuryConstruction Project
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2009

Tullino v. Pyramid Companies

The case involves an appeal by third-party defendant Terra Firma Construction Corp. from an order denying its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. The underlying action concerns personal injuries sustained by a plaintiff due to exposure to fireproofing material at a construction site. Third-party plaintiffs, including premises owners and contractors, brought an indemnification claim against Terra Firma, the injured plaintiff's employer. Terra Firma argued there was no contractual indemnification agreement. The Supreme Court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether a purchase order and an unsigned "Appendix A" constituted a binding indemnification agreement between Terra Firma and third-party plaintiff HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that a factual dispute existed regarding the parties' intent to be bound by Appendix A.

Workers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury DamagesThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentExpress AgreementPurchase OrderSubcontract Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejia v. Trustees of Net Realty Holding Trust

The third-party defendant, Plaster Master, appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which had denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law on a contractual indemnification claim. The lower court had found Plaster Master contractually obligated to indemnify Kimco Realty Services, Inc., the general contractor, in a case stemming from a personal injury lawsuit by a Plaster Master employee. The appellate court found the indemnification provision in the contract, drafted by Kimco, to be ambiguous. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarifying parol evidence, the court resolved the ambiguity against Kimco. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted Plaster Master's motion, and dismissed Kimco's third-party claim for contractual indemnification.

Contractual IndemnificationAmbiguity in ContractParol EvidenceConstruction LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityMeeting of the MindsThird-Party Action
References
6
Case No. SRO 0088351
Significant
Mar 20, 2002

Cheryl Coldiron vs. Compuware; Permissibly Self-Insured, by And through Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Adjusting Agent

The board issues a notice of intent to sanction a third-party administrator for failing to disclose the correct insurance carrier for over six years and schedules a conference to clarify the employer-insurer relationship.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn BancPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermissibly Self-InsuredThird-Party AdministratorHigh Self-Insured RetentionSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Excusable Error
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodrigues v. N & S Building Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Rodrigues, an employee of Caldas Concrete Company, Inc., was injured at a construction site. Plaintiffs commenced an action against the property owner and N & S Building Contractors, Inc., which in turn initiated a third-party action against Caldas for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed N & S's contractual indemnification claim against Caldas. N & S appealed this dismissal, arguing the agreement provided for indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the indemnification clause did not unambiguously cover injuries sustained by Caldas employees.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 241(6)Third-Party ActionConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor IndemnityGrave InjuryStrict Construction
References
5
Case No. ADJ12226694, ADJ12414651, ADJ12414992, ADJ12414993
Significant
Jun 17, 2024

GUILLERMO GONZALEZ, et al., Applicants vs. THE BICYCLE CASINO; ARCH INDEMNITY INS. CO., administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT, et al., Defendants

The Appeals Board consolidates two cases and issues a notice of intent to impose sanctions and costs against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for filing petitions for reconsideration with the willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings.

Labor Code Section 5813SanctionsCostsAttorney's FeesImproper MotiveFrivolousUnnecessary DelayPetitions for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWillful Intent
References
13
Case No. ADJ8965291; ADJ10451326; ADJ10750348; ADJ15382349; ADJ15382351; ADJ16951068; ADJ16951573; ADJ16953628; ADJ16953629; ADJ16124753; ADJ16124750; ADJ17290772; ADJ16953860
Significant

Alfredo Ledezma, et al. vs. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg, State Compensation Insurance Fund, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board consolidates eight cases and issues a notice of intent to impose sanctions against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for a pattern of filing frivolous petitions for reconsideration with the intent to delay trial proceedings.

WCABen bancconsolidationsanctionscostsattorney's feesremovalreconsiderationLabor Code section 5813willful intent
References
12
Case No. ADJ13332737, ADJ15218980, ADJ12640295
Significant
Jun 17, 2024

ABEL HIDALGO, et al. vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board consolidates three cases to address sanctions against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for filing petitions for reconsideration with the intent to disrupt or delay trial proceedings, issuing a notice of intent to impose sanctions and costs.

En BancSanctionsCostsAttorney's FeesLabor Code 5813Willful IntentImproper MotiveFrivolousDelay TacticsPetition for Reconsideration
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prave v. State

The State of New York appealed 17 separate orders from the Court of Claims that denied its motion for summary judgment in actions alleging intentional assault stemming from the Attica uprising. The State contended that the claimants' acceptance of workers' compensation benefits barred their intentional tort claims, constituting an election of remedies. Claimants argued they never applied for benefits and should not be bound by such an election. The Appellate Division held that accepting benefits, even if initiated by the employer, generally precludes a subsequent tort action if the Workers' Compensation Board determined the injuries were compensable. To pursue their tort claims, claimants must first seek to rescind the Board's prior determination that their injuries were accidental. Therefore, the Court unanimously reversed the lower court's orders, granted summary judgment to the State, and dismissed the claims without prejudice for claimants to seek a redetermination from the Workers' Compensation Board.

Attica UprisingWorkers' CompensationIntentional TortExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentCollateral AttackWorkers' Compensation BoardRescission of AwardElection of RemediesCourt of Claims
References
6
Case No. ADJ739750 (FRE 0217695) ADJ3422922 (FRE 0217696) ADJ4620151 (FRE 0217213)
Regular
Sep 23, 2010

JERRY P. WILLIAMS vs. GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for failing to provide a computer printout of benefits. SCIF objected, asserting the printout was available at a prior Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) with a former attorney. Although the printout was not explicitly mentioned in the MSC pre-trial statement or offered at trial, the WCAB accepted SCIF's representation of its availability. Consequently, finding no willful failure to comply with a regulatory obligation, the WCAB dismissed the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNotice of Intention To Impose SanctionsWCAB Rule 10607computer printout of benefitsMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Declaration of Desiree A. Mercadopre-trial conference statementproposed exhibitsEAMSwillful failure to comply
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,508 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