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
Apr 05, 2007

Ferguson v. Lion Holding, Inc.

This case involves a dispute over deferred compensation following the acquisition of Lion Holding, Inc. by Hannover Riickversi-cherungs-Akteiengesellschaft. Plaintiffs, former senior officers of CIGI and majority shareholders of Lion, claim Hannover breached a Letter Agreement by failing to pay the full $100 million 'Earnout' tied to CIGI's underwriting goals, alleging manipulation of financials. Hannover moved for partial summary judgment, arguing plaintiffs did not formally and timely object to board decisions impacting the Earnout calculation. The court denied summary judgment regarding retention and inter-company expense allocations where factual issues existed regarding Hannover's potential active obstruction of plaintiffs' ability to object. However, summary judgment was granted for Hannover on claims related to carried reserves due to plaintiffs' failure to meet specific condition precedents and for claims outside the scope of the Special Operating Rules, as these would create new contractual rights not originally bargained for.

Breach of ContractDeferred CompensationEarnout AgreementSummary JudgmentGood Faith and Fair DealingImplied CovenantPrevention DoctrineInsuranceReinsuranceCorporate Acquisition
References
54
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03149 [238 AD3d 619]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Sarante v. Courtlandt Dev., LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, concerning a construction worker's injury. Plaintiff Jose Sarante was injured when a chain block pulley system, used to hoist a steel beam, collapsed. The court affirmed partial summary judgment for Sarante on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the pulley system to be a failed safety device. It also affirmed the denial of summary judgment for defendants Courtlandt Development, LLC and AB Capstone Builders Corp. on their Labor Law claims and contractual indemnification claims against third-party defendant Gold Lion Steel, LLC, noting the right to indemnification had not vested. Gold Lion's motions for dismissal of third-party claims were denied due to lack of evidence regarding "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Finally, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed as plaintiff decided not to pursue it.

Labor Law § 240(1)Falling ObjectSafety DeviceChain Block Pulley SystemContractual IndemnificationDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilson v. Detroit Hockey Club, Inc.

The court affirmed the order, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Presiding Justice A. Franklin Mahoney at the Appellate Division. Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, and Titone concurred with the decision.

Order AffirmedAppellate DivisionConcurring JudgesPresiding Justice OpinionCosts Awarded
References
2
Case No. ADJ7395742
Regular
Jul 20, 2012

DWIGHT SMITH vs. DETROIT LIONS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal because the case had already proceeded to trial and was submitted for decision, making reconsideration an adequate remedy after a final WCJ order. The defendant's argument that California lacked jurisdiction due to an employment contract clause was not raised until after discovery closed and the trial date was set. The WCAB emphasizes that issues regarding jurisdiction can and should be raised during reconsideration following a WCJ decision, not through a premature petition for removal at this stage.

Petition for RemovalJurisdictionContract of EmploymentMichiganArbitrationProfessional Football PlayerMandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference StatementPetition Requesting Order To Stay ProceedingsWCAB Rule 10843(a)
References
0
Case No. ADJ7189565
Regular
Mar 28, 2013

CHARTRIC DARBY vs. DETROIT LIONS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., SEATTLE SEAHAWKS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Liberty Mutual's petition for removal, finding that the insurer failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for such a request. The Board determined that the insurer did not establish irreparable harm, as reconsideration after a final award would be an adequate remedy. The case was returned to the trial level for a new judge to consider evidence related to an ongoing grievance proceeding, provided it meets specific evidentiary standards. The new judge will then decide how, if at all, the grievance proceeding impacts the applicant's workers' compensation claim.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceGrievance ProceedingCollective Bargaining AgreementChoice of ForumChoice of LawIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJMedical-Legal Reports
References
1
Case No. ADJ7875409
Regular
May 28, 2015

GRADY JACKSON vs. OAKLAND RAIDERS, DETROIT LIONS, LIBERTY MUTUAL, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, CIGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed a Petition for Removal filed by applicant Grady Jackson. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning provided in the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) report. No specific details of the WCJ's report or the grounds for dismissal are provided in this order. The dismissal means the case will proceed without removal to the Appeals Board at this stage.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportdismiss petitionadministrative law judgeADJ7875409Oakland RaidersDetroit LionsLiberty MutualZenith Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ7537423
Regular
Feb 20, 2014

Gregory Landry vs. Arizona Wranglers, Detroit Lions, Chicago Blitz, The North River Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Gregory Landry's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on January 6, 2014, which was more than the 20-day statutory limit after the WCJ's decision was served on December 10, 2013. Because the decision was personally served, no mailing extension applied. Therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyLabor Code section 5903JurisdictionalServiceMailing ExtensionWCJ's decisionDismissedAppeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge
References
7
Case No. ADJ10092427
Regular
Jan 02, 2018

BRIAN WILLIAMS vs. SAN DIEGO PADRES, DETROIT TIGERS, CHICAGO CUBS, BALTIMORE ORIOLES, HOUSTON ASTROS, TIG MANCHESTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by the Detroit Tigers, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal. The WCJ recommended denial because further factual discovery, specifically a deposition of the applicant, was necessary to address the application and effect of Labor Code section 3600.5 regarding jurisdiction. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, holding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issued. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted by the Appeals Board.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 3600.5Subject Matter JurisdictionProfessional AthletePlace of HireDuty DaysPre-trial Conference
References
3
Case No. ADJ10354615
Regular
Jun 10, 2019

MILFORD BROWN vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, ST. LOUIS RAMS, CAROLINA PANTHERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, CARE OF BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CARE OF QUAL-LYNX, INC., DETROIT LIONS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a Petition for Removal in the case of Milford Brown. The Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The petitioner failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the case will proceed through the standard workers' compensation process.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyAdverse DecisionArizona CardinalsSt. Louis Rams
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perchinsky v. State

Claimant-plaintiff was injured while attaching wire to a wall at the State-owned Army National Guard Armory in Binghamton, Broome County. The plaintiff, an employee of Lemon Enterprises, Inc., fell from a ladder while decorating for a home show produced by Granny "G" Productions, Inc. Plaintiff sued the State, the Lions Club (including its officers and Binghamton Lions Charities, Inc.), and Granny "G" for violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), common-law negligence, and breach of contract. The lower courts dismissed all of plaintiff's claims, finding the work was not covered by the Labor Law statutes and no supervision by defendants. On appeal, the dismissal of plaintiff's claims was affirmed. However, the appellate court modified the decision regarding the Lions Club's cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Granny "G", ruling that it should include costs for defending the main action and pursuing third-party actions, but not for prosecuting the cross-claim itself.

Ladder FallPersonal InjuryConstruction SafetyPremises LiabilityIndemnificationContractual IndemnityLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtThird-Party Action
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 19 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