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. ADJ6607637
Regular
Jul 01, 2010

NATHAN WINES vs. SDA SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where Insurance Company of the West (ICW) seeks reconsideration of an arbitration decision barring its contribution claim against Zenith Insurance Company. The arbitrator initially found ICW's contribution proceedings were untimely, but now recommends granting reconsideration based on new case law. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board agreed that a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed can satisfy the "institute proceedings" requirement for contribution claims under Labor Code §5500.5(e), reversing the prior decision and returning the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardArbitration DecisionStatute of LimitationsContribution ProceedingsDeclaration of ReadinessLabor Code §5500.5(e)Stipulated AwardCumulative InjuryIndustrial InjuryInsurance Coverage
References
1
Case No. ADJ2497883 (SFO 0450940) ADJ3261393 (SFO 0504693)
Regular
Apr 30, 2010

JANETTE HARDIN vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CHARTIS INSURANCE, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves Chartis Insurance seeking reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision setting the date of cumulative trauma injury for Janette Hardin's breast cancer as May 28, 1997, not the previously stipulated date of May 16, 2001. Chartis argued the stipulated date was res judicata and could not be altered, especially in a contribution proceeding. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming that contribution proceedings allow for a relitigation of liability and the determination of the true date of injury based on facts, not prior stipulations between the applicant and one defendant. The Board reasoned that findings of liability in the primary case are not binding in supplemental contribution proceedings.

Cumulative traumaDate of injuryContribution proceedingsRes judicataStipulated awardLabor Code section 5500.5Apportionment of liabilityCase-in-chiefSupplemental proceedingsGreenwald v. Carey Distribution Company
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. LAO 825981, LAO 825983
Regular
Sep 14, 2007

LUCRETIA SHERMAINE vs. LIFECARE ASSURANCE COMPANY, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ACCA, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Everest's petition for reconsideration, finding that Everest properly filed a timely petition for contribution on August 11, 2006. The Board rescinded the lower orders, determining that not all contribution issues were subject to mandatory arbitration, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board encouraged voluntary arbitration of all contribution issues to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ContributionLabor Code § 5500.5Labor Code § 5275Mandatory ArbitrationCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryCompromise and ReleaseApportionment of LiabilityDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. ADJ120949 (LBO 0345949)
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

RON CURTIS vs. C.J. SEGERSTROM & SONS, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT FOR EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE, AMERICAN SAFETY CASUALTY COMPANY

This case concerns American Safety Casualty Company's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision regarding contribution. The arbitrator found that Everest National Insurance Company timely instituted contribution proceedings based on a subsequent Compromise and Release Agreement that redefined the cumulative trauma injury dates. American argued that a prior, rescinded award determining earlier injury dates should control, but the Board affirmed the arbitrator's conclusion that the rescission rendered the prior finding void. The Board clarified that this decision only addresses the timeliness of contribution proceedings, not final liability, allowing for further litigation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Trauma ClaimContribution ProceedingsArbitrator's Findings and AwardCompromise and Release AgreementDate of Cumulative Trauma InjuryLabor Code Section 5500.5Rescinded Findings and AwardStatus Quo AntePetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

Stewart v. Chautauqua County Board of Elections

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. DeYoung

This case concerns an appeal by a defendant from a County Court's denial of his application for judicial diversion under CPL article 216. The defendant was charged with criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree. The County Court initially denied diversion, finding that the defendant's alcohol and substance abuse were not contributing factors to his criminal behavior, despite an evaluation indicating cannabis, alcohol, and opiate dependence. The Appellate Court reversed the County Court's decision, asserting that the record did not support the finding that the defendant's substance abuse was not a contributing factor. The court emphasized that the statute only requires a contributing factor, not an exclusive or primary cause, and noted that the defendant used proceeds partly for drugs. The Appellate Court granted the defendant's application for judicial diversion and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Judicial DiversionDrug Law Reform Act of 2009Substance Abuse TreatmentCriminal BehaviorAlcohol DependenceCannabis DependenceFelony OffenseAppellate ReviewPlea of GuiltyContributing Factor
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shau Chung Hu ex rel. Lowbet Realty Corp. v. Lowbet Realty Corp.

Petitioner Shau Chung Hu initiated a special proceeding to wind up Lowbet Realty Corp. and investigate the dissipation of its assets by respondent Margaret Liu. In the context of this larger proceeding, respondents Bay Shine Management Company and Ray Chen moved to dismiss the cross-claims for indemnification and contribution filed against them by respondent 973 44th Street Realty LLC. These cross-claims stemmed from petitioner's allegations that Liu's fraudulent conveyance of Lowbet's property to 973 44th Street was facilitated by Bay Shine and Chen. The court examined the legal principles of contribution and indemnification, particularly concerning whether 973 44th Street's potential liability for rescission or tort-based fraud allowed for such claims against the other respondents. Ultimately, the court denied the motion to dismiss, finding it premature to determine, as a matter of law, that 973 44th Street would not suffer actual out-of-pocket damages or face tort-based liability that could warrant contribution or indemnification.

Corporate DissolutionFraudulent ConveyanceIndemnificationContributionCross-ClaimsMotion to DismissBusiness Corporation LawCPLRRescissionFiduciary Duty Breach
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harwood v. Addison

Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the termination of her employment as a senior account clerk typist by the City of Watertown, following charges of incompetence and misconduct. The Appellate Division modified the determination, annulling the finding of guilt on one specification of misconduct due to lack of substantial evidence. The court also deemed the termination penalty "shocking to one’s sense of fairness" given the petitioner's long service, lack of prior discipline, and external factors contributing to the issues. The matter was remitted for the imposition of a lesser penalty, not exceeding a two-month suspension without pay.

Employment LawAdministrative ReviewCPLR Article 78Public Sector EmploymentWrongful TerminationJudicial ReviewPenalty MitigationDue ProcessSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate Division
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 8,145 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