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
Aug 13, 1992

Baca v. HRH Construction Corp.

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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. Proof of Claim No. 149
Regular Panel Decision

In re DeWitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.

The Debtor, DeWitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., moved to expunge the priority portion of a claim filed by United Staffing Registry, Inc. The Claimant sought priority status for social security, Medicare, and unemployment payments made for temporary employees it provided, citing 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper analyzed the application of § 507(a)(5) in light of case precedents, including Howard Delivery Service, Inc. The Court determined that the priority under § 507(a)(5) is intended to protect contributions for a debtor's direct employees, and the temporary employees were not employees of DeWitt. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was sustained, disallowing the priority and reclassifying the entire claim as a general unsecured claim, while also denying the Debtor's request for legal fees.

Bankruptcy LawPriority ClaimsEmployee Benefit Plans11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)Temporary EmployeesUnsecured ClaimsIndemnificationLegal FeesClaim ExpungementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
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
Mar 07, 2011

De Oleo v. Charis Christian Ministries, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff sought recovery for injuries sustained during construction work at a building owned by Charis, whose employer was St. Loren Construction Corp. Charis, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs, moved for a default judgment on their third-party claims for common-law and contractual indemnification and contribution against St. Loren, the third-party defendant. The Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order, granting the motion as to the claim for common-law indemnification, while otherwise affirming. The appellate court found Charis provided sufficient proof of St. Loren's negligence and their own lack of negligence. It was also noted that Charis did not need to disprove Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as it must be pleaded as an affirmative defense.

common-law indemnificationcontractual indemnificationcontributiondefault judgmentconstruction injuryemployer negligenceaffirmative defenseappellate reviewmotion practice
References
7
Case No. 88, 89, 90, 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin; In the Matter of the Claim of Sheldon Matthews; In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson; In the Matter of the Claim of Bolot Djanuzakov

Four claimants (three transit workers and one teacher) sought Workers' Compensation Law benefits in 2020, alleging psychological injuries like PTSD from workplace COVID-19 exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claims, stating the stress experienced was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced," thus not constituting a compensable "accident." The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board erred by not considering claimants' vulnerabilities and applying disparate burdens compared to physical COVID-19 claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions, clarifying that individual vulnerabilities are immaterial and affirming the "greater stress" standard for compensability.

Workers' Compensation LawPsychological Injury ClaimsCOVID-19 Workplace ExposurePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCompensable Accident StandardEmotional Stress CriteriaSimilarly Situated WorkersAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionLegislative Amendments
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2005

Smith v. 21 West LLC Limited Liability Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Bravo’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss defendant 21 West’s cross claims for contribution and indemnification. Bravo failed to establish that the plaintiff was its employee or that it operated as a joint venture, thereby not barring 21 West’s cross claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Furthermore, Bravo could not demonstrate insufficient control over the work to negate negligence liability, nor prove supervision over 21 West. The appellate court found that the parties’ conduct, including Bravo commencing work and obtaining an insurance certificate, manifested an intent to be bound by an unsigned contract. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously affirmed the denial of Bravo's summary judgment motion, upholding 21 West's cross claims.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawCross ClaimsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEmployee StatusJoint VentureNegligence Liability
References
4
Case No. ADJ581749 (VNO 0529719)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

ARLENE HITE vs. TEPCO (STANDARD ABRASIVES, INC.), EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

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
Showing 1-10 of 18,121 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