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
Jul 26, 2006

Velez v. Daar

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sought damages for psychological and emotional injuries stemming from a failure to diagnose thyroid cancer. The plaintiff engaged in psychotherapy with Dr. Velma Stade and initially limited the disclosure of related notes. However, during a deposition, the plaintiff disclosed that factors beyond the thyroid cancer, such as work environment and family issues, contributed to his psychological symptoms. Consequently, the defendant sought full disclosure of Dr. Stade's notes, arguing that the plaintiff had waived his psychotherapist-client privilege. The Supreme Court reversed the motion court's protective order, determining that the plaintiff had indeed waived the CPLR 4508 social worker-patient confidentiality privilege by placing his psychological condition in controversy, thereby making the disclosure of the sensitive records warranted.

medical malpracticepsychotherapyconfidentiality privilegewaiver of privilegeCPLR 4508psychological injuriesemotional distressthyroid cancerdisclosure of recordssocial worker-patient privilege
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tishman Construction Corp. v. Arc Electrical Construction Co.

This case concerns a declaratory judgment action brought by Morgan Trust Company and Tishman Construction Corporation (plaintiffs) against Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Company (defendant). Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Northbrook was obligated to defend and indemnify them in an underlying action involving an injured worker, Joseph Hickey, who fell on a construction site. The initial motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs was denied by the IAS Court. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court determined that prior rulings based on res judicata established Northbrook's obligation, and that a late notice of claim argument by Northbrook lacked merit. Consequently, Northbrook was declared obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs.

Summary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentInsurance obligationIndemnificationAdditional insuredRes judicataLate notice of claimAppellate reviewConstruction accidentContract law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giles v. Gi Yi

The dissenting opinion by Justice Whalen challenges the majority's interpretation of 22 NYCRR 202.17, which mandates personal injury plaintiffs to secure an expert witness report on causation and provide it to the defense prior to the defendant's medical examination of the plaintiff. Whalen argues this requirement is an undue burden and is not explicitly outlined within the regulation's scope. The dissent emphasizes that 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) only requires disclosure of reports from 'medical providers who have previously treated or examined the party seeking recovery,' distinct from expert reports generated solely for litigation purposes. Furthermore, Justice Whalen asserts that expert disclosure is governed by CPLR 3101 (d), which does not necessitate such early disclosure, and finds that the Supreme Court's decision to compel was an abuse of discretion, concluding that Nero v Kendrick was wrongly decided.

Expert Witness DisclosureCausationMedical ExaminationPersonal InjuryCivil Procedure Law and Rules (CPLR)Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court (22 NYCRR)Dissenting OpinionJudicial DiscretionPreclusionLitigation Expenses
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Albemarle Corp.

This case involves an appeal by MEMC Electronic Materials and MEMC Pasadena (collectively MEMC) challenging a trial court's order. The order granted partial summary judgment to Albemarle Corporation and denied MEMC's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Albemarle sought indemnification from MEMC for payments made to Ethyl Corporation, which had indemnified Ethyl for claims arising from a plant fire. MEMC argued that their Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) with Albemarle did not obligate them to indemnify Albemarle for this specific liability, citing clauses concerning assumed obligations, non-disclosure of the Ethyl-Albemarle indemnity agreement, and the timing of the liability's origin. The court analyzed Sections 3.4, 4.16, and 7.4 of the APA, ultimately concluding that MEMC had not assumed the obligation for the Ethyl-Albemarle indemnity agreement. It found that the payment made by Albemarle to Ethyl arose from a prior contractual relationship, not from operations of the plant on or after the closing date of the APA between MEMC and Albemarle. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of MEMC.

Contract InterpretationIndemnification AgreementAsset Purchase AgreementSummary JudgmentTexas LawVirginia LawCorporate LiabilityPre-existing ContractsPost-closing OperationsAffiliate Agreements
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2008

AIU Insurance v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The case involves a dispute between two insurers regarding their respective coverage obligations for a mutual insured in an underlying action following a fatal construction site accident. Plaintiff, who insured both the site owner and the subcontractor, sought reimbursement from defendant, who also insured the employer under a workers’ compensation policy, for half of a settlement paid in the underlying action. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to plaintiff, obligating defendant to reimburse plaintiff. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, vacating the judgment and granting summary judgment to defendant. The appellate court ruled that the antisubrogation rule would have compelled the dismissal of any third-party action, thereby precluding plaintiff from obtaining reimbursement from a coinsurer.

Insurance CoverageSubrogationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFatal AccidentCoinsuranceAppellate ReversalUnderlying ActionThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Preserver Insurance v. Ryba

This is a declaratory judgment action where an unnamed plaintiff insurance company appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting Northern Assurance Company of America's cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend and indemnify East Coast Stucco & Construction, Inc., in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact against Northern's prima facie showing that Insurance Law § 3420 (d) applied, rendering the plaintiff’s disclaimer untimely. Additionally, Northern established that the injured party was subject to Workers’ Compensation Law, precluding the application of the policy’s liability limit. The court remitted the matter for entry of a judgment declaring the plaintiff is obligated to defend and indemnify East Coast.

Insurance LawDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewTimely DisclaimerInsurance Coverage
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. v. State

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated, both Independent Review Organizations (IROs), appealed a trial court's judgment denying their request to exempt certain records from disclosure under the Public Information Act (PIA). They sought to prevent the release of information pertaining to their reviewers, reviewer contracts, and compensation terms, arguing that this information was either 'confidential by law' or fell under the commercial or financial information exception of the PIA. The Texas Department of Insurance, having received the initial information request, had interpreted its rules to protect patient-specific data provided *to* IROs, not data provided *by* IROs as part of their certification application. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that any exception to public disclosure applied to the disputed information.

Public Information ActOpen Records ActConfidentiality ExemptionCommercial InformationFinancial InformationIndependent Review OrganizationsIRO CertificationMedical NecessityUtilization ReviewTrade Secrets
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2004

In Re CEI Roofing, Inc.

This case concerns an emergency motion filed by CEI Roofing, Inc. and its affiliated debtors, undergoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy, to authorize the payment of pre-petition employee wages and benefits. The motion, seeking relief under Sections 105(a) and 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, was granted by Judge Harlin D. Hale. The court permitted the debtors to pay employee payroll obligations and maintain various benefit programs, including health plans, retirement benefits, and workers' compensation. The decision emphasized the necessity of these payments for preserving the debtors' going-concern value and was supported by the consent of the secured creditor, aligning with the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme for such claims.

Chapter 11Emergency MotionEmployee ObligationsWage ClaimsBenefit ProgramsPriority ClaimsCash CollateralGoing Concern ValueBankruptcy Code SectionsCritical Vendors Doctrine
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1979

Hughes, Harrison & Brown Roofing, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance

Plaintiffs, a corporation and individuals, initiated an action seeking a declaration that their insurance company, the defendant, was obligated to defend and indemnify them in a negligence lawsuit filed by an employee, Patrick Paul Black. The underlying negligence action alleged that the corporation failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. The defendant insurer denied its obligation, citing policy exclusions related to workers' compensation liabilities and disputing coverage for the individual plaintiffs. Initially, the Supreme Court, Orange County, granted the plaintiffs' request for accelerated judgment, compelling the insurer to provide defense. However, this judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, with the appellate court noting the absence of the actual insurance policy and the impropriety of adjudicating coverage without it, especially concerning the workers' compensation exclusion.

Insurance coverage disputeDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyWorkers' compensation exclusionAccelerated judgmentNegligence actionEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewPolicy interpretationSummary judgment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Kolodny

Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine if it was obligated to indemnify Chaim S. Kolodny or provide coverage for claims stemming from a fatal 1990 automobile accident. GEICO argued a policy exclusion applied because the vehicle was for Kolodny's regular use. The Supreme Court initially granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that GEICO's disclaimer, issued over a year after receiving notice of the accident, was untimely and lacked an adequate explanation for the delay. Consequently, GEICO was found to be obligated to provide coverage. The appeal from the intermediate order was dismissed.

Insurance CoverageAutomobile AccidentDeclaratory JudgmentTimely DisclaimerPolicy ExclusionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEstate AdministrationIndemnificationRegular Use Clause
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,733 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