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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff Madaffari, an employee of Triangle, was injured in an accident involving defective scaffolding. He initiated an action against Ethen and Meral Celelei, the property owners, and Wilmod Company, Inc., responsible for anchoring the scaffold. Wilmod subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Triangle Aluminum Products Co., Inc., and Borneo Sumatra Trading Co., the supplier of the defective nails, filed a cross-complaint against Triangle. A tentative settlement was reached between Madaffari, Triangle, and Celelei, which involved a payment from Triangle's carrier to Madaffari and general releases for Triangle. However, Wilmod and Borneo intended to continue their actions against Triangle. Triangle moved for summary judgment based on General Obligations Law § 15-108, which governs the effect of releases on contribution among tortfeasors. The court, treating the tentative settlement as finalized, applied the principles of GOL § 15-108, noting that it logically extends to settlements between a plaintiff and a third-party defendant, especially given that Workers' Compensation Law initially barred Madaffari from suing Triangle directly. The court held that remaining tortfeasors are entitled to credit for the settling tortfeasor's equitable share, and a released tortfeasor is relieved from contribution liability. Therefore, Triangle's motion for summary judgment was converted into a motion for an order of discontinuance with prejudice and granted, conditional upon the finalization of the settlement. The court also clarified that while Triangle would not physically participate in the continued trial, its involvement could be presented to the jury for culpability apportionment.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintCross-ComplaintGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108TortfeasorsContributionIndemnitySettlementDiscontinuance With PrejudiceApportionment of Culpability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case addresses whether parties held liable under General Municipal Law former § 205-a, which protects injured firefighters, may seek contribution or indemnification from other allegedly culpable parties not directly liable to the firefighters. In a prior ruling concerning a November 1984 fire, the Court of Appeals had dismissed direct claims by injured firefighter Frank Raquet and the representative of deceased firefighter Mitchell Spoth against contractor defendants due to a lack of premises control, while reinstating claims against the owner Leonard Zane and tenant defendants. Zane and the tenant defendants subsequently sought to convert their cross-claims against the contractors into third-party complaints for indemnification and contribution, which lower courts denied. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory limitations of § 205-a for direct firefighter recovery do not preclude indemnification or contribution actions among alleged tortfeasors. The decision clarifies that the principle allowing a defendant to seek contribution from a third party, even if the injured plaintiff has no direct right of recovery, applies in this context, ensuring that the economic burden can be shifted to those whose negligence actually caused the harm.

ContributionIndemnificationGeneral Municipal Law § 205-aFirefighters RulePremises LiabilityBuilding Code ViolationsThird-Party ActionsTortfeasorsApportionment of DamagesComparative Fault
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1993

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case concerns the allocation of liability among defendants under Texas's Comparative Responsibility Law in a wrongful death action. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the lower court's judgment regarding the calculation of prejudgment interest, the sufficiency of evidence for lost inheritance damages, and the principles of contribution among jointly and severally liable defendants. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case, holding that prejudgment interest applies to the entire judgment including future damages, and found no evidence to support the award of lost inheritance damages. It also clarified the rules for contribution among defendants.

Wrongful DeathComparative ResponsibilityPrejudgment InterestFuture DamagesLost InheritanceSettlementContributionTort LawStatutory InterpretationDue Process
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case concerns an appeal by third-party defendant Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) from an order denying its motion for summary judgment. The underlying action was initiated by the plaintiff, representing decedent Steven Stathis, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death due to medical malpractice by Jamaica Hospital and defendant physicians. Subsequently, the hospital and physicians filed third-party complaints against TWA for contribution. TWA argued that contribution claims against a prior tortfeasor are impermissible when the current tortfeasors are successive. The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's denial of summary judgment, reasoning that contribution is appropriate in cases of indivisible injuries like wrongful death, and found existing questions of fact regarding TWA's potential negligence as a proximate cause of death.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryContributionSummary JudgmentSuccessive TortfeasorsIndivisible InjuryProximate CauseAppellate ReviewHospital Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This opinion addresses a declaratory judgment action brought by Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Madison Square Garden Corporation (collectively, "the Garden") against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("Local 3"). The Garden sought a declaration that they are not liable to Local 3 for contribution or indemnification concerning a judgment previously entered against Local 3 in antecedent civil rights litigation (Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Anderson v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc.). In those prior actions, Local 3 was found liable for intentional discriminatory hiring practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court, presided over by Judge Sand in the Southern District of New York, granted the Garden's motion for summary judgment. The decision ruled that federal law governs, precluding contribution and indemnification under Title VII based on Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers. Furthermore, even if contribution were theoretically available under § 1981, it would not lie for an intentional tortfeasor, and any such claim would be defeated by a release given to the Garden by the original plaintiffs. Indemnity was also denied on similar grounds, emphasizing that an intentional tortfeasor cannot escape liability for deliberate wrongdoing.

Declaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationCivil Rights Act of 1964Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Employment DiscriminationIntentional TortFederal Common Law
References
16
Case No. ADJ581749 (VNO 0529719)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case concerns Clarendon National Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's contribution award. Clarendon argued it should not be liable for contribution because it was joined as a defendant over a year after the underlying cumulative trauma claim was settled. The Board denied reconsideration, finding that Clarendon received timely actual notice of Everest's contribution claim within one year of the settlement approval. Therefore, despite the delay in formal joinder, Clarendon cannot show prejudice and is liable for its share of the contribution award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ContributionLabor Code section 5500.5Cumulative traumaCompromise and releaseOrder of JoinderNunc pro tuncActual noticeTimely noticePrejudice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Trustees of the Special and Superior Officers Benevolent Association Defined Contribution Fund (Plaintiffs) sued Rochdale Village, Inc. (Defendant) for allegedly failing to make required contributions to the fund. The Plaintiffs' claims were brought under Section 301 of the LMRA and Sections 515 and 502(a)(3) of ERISA. The Defendant argued that its obligation was contingent on an unsatisfied condition precedent and that the contributions would be illegal under LMRA Section 302. The Court found the Memorandum of Agreement created an unambiguous obligation for the Defendant to contribute, and the SSOBA Fund did not violate LMRA Section 302. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the Defendant's motion.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDefined Contribution PlanPension FundSummary JudgmentCondition PrecedentMultiemployer PlanTrust FundEmployer Contributions
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2003

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This memorandum order addresses a motion to dismiss brought by third-party defendant Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. against third-party plaintiff Wei Wu's claim for contribution. Wei Wu was previously accused of copyright infringement by plaintiff Lehman Brothers, Inc. The core legal question examined by the court was whether the Copyright Act, either explicitly or implicitly, or federal common law, establishes a right to contribution between a primary and an ancillary tortfeasor in copyright infringement cases. The court concluded that neither the Copyright Act nor federal common law provides for such a right to contribution. Consequently, the motion to dismiss filed by Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. against Wei Wu's claim for copyright contribution was granted.

Copyright InfringementContribution ClaimThird-Party LitigationMotion to DismissFederal Common LawCopyright ActAncillary TortfeasorPrimary TortfeasorJudicial InterpretationStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1992

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dismissing a third-party plaintiff's claim for contribution. The court determined that a pre-verdict "high-low" agreement between the plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff general contractor constituted a release under General Obligations Law § 15-108, thereby barring the contribution claim against the third-party defendant. It was also noted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal the dismissal of the third-party claim. Furthermore, the court found that the third-party plaintiff's purported assignment of its contribution claim to the plaintiff was void, as no claim to assign existed given that its liability was limited to less than its equitable share by the settlement. The court also questioned whether such an assignment could circumvent the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions.

High-low agreementContribution claimGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108ReleaseCPLR 5511Standing to appealWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivityEquitable shareAssignment of claimThird-party practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Gordon Wagner, employed by Frank Crown Plastering Company, was electrocuted, leading to Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA), the compensation carrier, paying nearly $30,000 in benefits. Wagner then sued Allen & Coon Construction Company (A&C) and Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) as third-party tortfeasors. TEIA intervened to recover its expenditures. A&C settled with Wagner for $80,000 and agreed to indemnify Wagner against TEIA's claims. HL&P later settled with Wagner for another $80,000, and TEIA endorsed the checks, with Wagner receiving the full proceeds. Wagner then assigned his indemnity rights against A&C to TEIA. TEIA sued A&C, and A&C sought contribution from HL&P. The trial court granted summary judgment for TEIA against A&C and for A&C for contribution from HL&P. On appeal, the court affirmed TEIA's judgment against A&C, based on the "first money" rule, establishing A&C's liability to TEIA upon its initial settlement with Wagner. However, the court reversed the judgment awarding A&C contribution from HL&P, concluding that A&C had only settled its own liability and failed to establish a claim for contribution.

Worker's Compensation SubrogationThird-Party TortfeasorSettlement AgreementIndemnity AgreementSummary JudgmentContributionJoint and Several LiabilityFirst Money RuleAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,816 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