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
Jun 13, 2000

Utica Mutual Insurance v. 215 West 91st Street Corp.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company initiated a declaratory judgment action against Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company and 215 West 91st Street Corp. to determine Atlantic Mutual's obligation to defend and indemnify 215 West in underlying personal injury lawsuits. Utica Mutual had initially defended 215 West but later sought to recover costs from Atlantic Mutual. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted Utica Mutual's cross-motion. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that Utica Mutual was equitably estopped from denying coverage after assuming the defense without reserving its rights. Consequently, the complaint against Atlantic Mutual and 215 West was dismissed, and it was declared that Atlantic Mutual was not obligated to reimburse Utica Mutual for the defense costs.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance CoverageEquitable EstoppelSummary JudgmentDuty to DefendIndemnificationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawNew York LawPersonal Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. ADJ4086603 (LAO 0829698) ADJ4469358 (LAO 0829699)
Regular
May 01, 2009

ADA ROZENBLAT vs. CEDARS SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board notice addresses a dispute over attorney's fees and costs awarded as sanctions. The defense seeks $800.50 for opposing a petition for reconsideration, while applicant's counsel, Daniel Escamilla, concedes only $540.00. The Board finds $800.50 reasonable and proposes to award this amount to defense counsel, Pearlman, Borska & Wax, L.L.P. This award is separate from any other sanctions payable to the General Fund.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADA ROZENBLATCEDARS SINAI HEALTH SYSTEMADJ4086603ADJ4469358ATTORNEY'S FEESCOSTSSANCTIONSLABOR CODE § 5813PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
0
Case No. FRE 192364, FRE 192365, FRE 198592
Regular
Sep 21, 2007

CAROL MCKINLEY vs. RAMALLAH, INC./GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves a request for additional attorney's fees and costs following a successful defense against a defendant's petition for writ of review. The Appeals Board reviewed the itemized hours and requested rate, disallowing time spent on specific tasks deemed clerical or administrative. Ultimately, the Board awarded $\$ 2,100.00$ in attorney's fees and $\$ 49.45$ in costs, recognizing the applicant's attorney's experience and the outcome of the appeal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealRemandLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Certified Workers' Compensation SpecialistHourly RateCosts on Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 1996

Cardone v. Villa Margherita, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied his motion to dismiss certain affirmative defenses. The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion, as the defendant provided sufficient proof to raise a material question of fact regarding the nature of the plaintiff's employment relationship with the defendant. This question is crucial because the defenses would be barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 if the plaintiff were an employee of the defendant. The order was affirmed with costs.

personal injuriesaffirmative defensesemployment relationshipWorkers' Compensation LawSupreme CourtNassau Countyappealmotion to dismissquestion of factappellate decision
References
2
Case No. 03 Civ. 0332(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

In Re September 11th Liability Insurance Coverage Cases

This opinion and order addresses two Rule 12(c) motions regarding insurance coverage for the World Trade Center properties following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sought a declaration that it is an "Additional Insured" under Zurich American Insurance Company's policies, while World Trade Center Properties LLC (WTCP) sought a declaration that Zurich is obligated to cover defense costs. The court, presided over by District Judge Hellerstein, denied both motions. It found ambiguity in the binder regarding the Port Authority's "Additional Insured" status, stating that the issue was premature without further discovery. Furthermore, the court held that New York Insurance Regulation 107 does not require rewriting Zurich's binder and policies to include defense costs, considering the unique circumstances, the sophistication of the insured, and the fact that Zurich explicitly excluded defense costs, which Silverstein (WTCP's affiliate) accepted after failing to secure conventional coverage. The court also affirmed supplemental jurisdiction over the insurance claims due to their close relation to the underlying September 11th liability cases.

Insurance CoverageSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterRule 12(c) MotionDeclaratory ReliefAdditional Insured StatusDefense CostsInsurance BinderNew York Insurance LawRegulation 107
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 1995

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. State Insurance Fund

Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union) initiated a declaratory judgment action against The State Insurance Fund (SIF) to recover defense and settlement costs. These costs were expended on behalf of Regional Scaffolding and Hoisting Co., Inc., a mutually insured party in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court initially denied National Union's motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of SIF. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the antisubrogation rule did not apply in this context. Consequently, it determined that National Union and SIF were co-insurers for Regional Scaffolding's common-law liability. The court granted National Union's motion for summary judgment in part, declaring SIF's duty to reimburse National Union for one-half of the reasonable settlement and defense costs, and remanded for a trial to ascertain these amounts.

Antisubrogation RuleDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeCo-Insurer LiabilityDefense Costs ReimbursementSettlement CostsEmployer's LiabilityComprehensive General LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. ADJ2151993 (SFO 0507276)
Regular
May 18, 2018

RICHARD JOHNSON vs. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF PACIFICA

This case concerns the award of appellate costs to the City of Pacifica. The Court of Appeal previously affirmed a decision in Pacifica's favor and ordered the City of South San Francisco (CSSF) to bear Pacifica's costs. Pacifica subsequently submitted a verified petition for costs totaling $1,425.00, which included electronic filing and paper copy expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found Pacifica's requested costs reasonable and awarded them against CSSF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturFirst District Court of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationArbitratorPetition for CostsAppellate CostsReimbursementVerified PetitionSubstantiation of Costs
References
1
Case No. 04-CR-156
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Taveras

Defendant Humberto Pepin Taveras faces a homicide trial where the government seeks the death penalty for the killings of two associates during a drug trafficking dispute. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein addresses the admissibility of a self-defense claim, emphasizing heightened protections for defendants in capital cases and allowing more leeway for evidence favoring the defendant. The defense intends to establish self-defense through witness statements suggesting the victims, José Rosario and Carlos Madrid, had threatened Pepin and his family. The prosecution disputes this, arguing Pepin deliberately sought out and murdered the victims, thereby precluding a self-defense claim as he initiated the confrontations. The court ultimately rules that Pepin will be permitted to argue self-defense, and related evidence will be allowed, with a self-defense instruction to the jury contingent on sufficient proof being presented.

Self-defenseCapital punishmentHomicide trialEvidentiary rulesDrug traffickingDeath penaltyJury instructionsCriminal lawDue processReasonable doubt
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 3,141 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