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

Commercial Risk Reinsurance Co. v. Security Insurance

Petitioners Commercial Risk Reinsurance Company Limited and Commercial Risk Re-Insurance Company (collectively “Commercial Risk”) initiated an action to vacate an arbitration award obtained by respondent Security Insurance Company of Hartford (“Security”). Security subsequently cross-moved to confirm the Award. The District Court denied Commercial Risk’s motion to vacate and granted Security’s motion to confirm the Award, finding that Commercial Risk failed to establish sufficient grounds for misconduct by the arbitrators. Commercial Risk then sought reconsideration of this order, arguing improper exclusion of a witness and documents related to damages. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its original decision and emphasizing the broad discretion granted to arbitrators in procedural matters, particularly given the "Honorable Engagement" clause in the parties' agreement.

ArbitrationReinsurance ContractsVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardMotion for ReconsiderationFederal Arbitration ActInternational ArbitrationEvidentiary RulingsJudicial ReviewArbitrator Discretion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

474431 Associates v. AXA Global Risks US Insurance

This case involves an appeal by Allcity Insurance Company in a consolidated action seeking a declaratory judgment regarding co-insurance liability between Allcity and AXA Global Risks US Insurance Company. The dispute arose from an underlying action where an injured worker obtained a judgment against a property owner, which was satisfied by the owner's insurer, AIG. AIG then sought reimbursement from the worker's employer's carriers, Allcity (worker's compensation) and AXA (general liability). The Supreme Court initially favored AXA, but the appellate court reversed, holding that AXA's disclaimer of coverage was untimely under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). The matter was remitted to declare AXA a co-insurer with Allcity.

Insurance Law § 3420 (d)Disclaimer of CoverageTimely Notice RequirementCo-Insurance DisputeGeneral Liability InsuranceWorker's Compensation InsuranceSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Court DecisionDeclaratory ReliefPolicy Exclusion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, acting as a governmental agency and successor in interest to several insolvent workers' compensation self-insured trusts, commenced an action against a third-party administrator (Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.), its employees, related corporate entities, insurance brokers (including Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc.), former trustees of one of the trusts (RITNY), and an actuarial firm (Regnier Consulting Group, Inc.). The plaintiff alleged misconduct and malfeasance by the defendants led to trust insolvencies and sought to recover accumulated deficits. The case involves cross appeals challenging the Supreme Court’s partial dismissal of the complaint, specifically concerning the timeliness of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and common-law indemnification, applying the repudiation and discovery rules for statute of limitations. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by dismissing specific claims against Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc., broadening the temporal scope of breach of fiduciary duty claims against other defendants, and reinstating common-law indemnification claims against several RITNY trustees, affirming the order as modified and remitting the case.

Workers' CompensationBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractCommon-Law IndemnificationStatute of LimitationsRepudiation RuleDiscovery RuleTrust Insolvency
References
27
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. ADJ8418853
Regular
Oct 22, 2013

ANA ORELLANA vs. AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC., C.N.A.; administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order regarding a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) selection. The Board also denied the Defendant's request for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Defendant argued the Applicant should be re-evaluated by the same QME from a prior, unrepresented claim, but the Board adopted the Judge's reasoning that the Applicant, now represented, is entitled to a new QME panel for the distinct, current claim. The Board determined the distinction between represented and unrepresented employee QME procedures supported the entitlement to a new panel, overriding the Defendant's argument for re-evaluation by the prior QME.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmCumulative TraumaPanel QMEUnrepresented Employee
References
12
Case No. ADJ7987695 ADJ7987686
Regular
May 08, 2014

VANESSA BRUCE vs. VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM/PHYSICIANS FOR HEALTHY HOSPITALS; CRUM & FORSTER AND TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant, a licensed vocational nurse, sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained when she fell asleep driving home after working three extra hours off the clock due to a coworker's issue. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied her petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found the injury did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment, as the "going and coming rule" applied and neither the "special mission" nor "special risk" exceptions were met. The applicant's decision to stay late was voluntary, not at the employer's request, and falling asleep while driving is a common risk, not a special employment-related hazard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLicensed Vocational NurseSpecific InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjuryHeadachesCumulative InjurySleep DisorderGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission Exception
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnaby v. A. & C. Properties

Plaintiff Robert A. Barnaby was injured after falling from a stepladder at a construction site while framing windows on the second floor. He moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants' liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants appealed, contending that providing a stepladder constituted 'proper protection.' The court, distinguishing from prior cases, found two distinct elevation-related risks. While a stepladder addressed one risk, no device protected the plaintiff from falling through the window opening. Therefore, the order granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability was affirmed.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentStepladder FallElevation RiskSummary JudgmentLiabilityWorker ProtectionSafety DeviceAppellate CourtNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clements v. Panzarella

The petitioners, Warren Clements and Raymond Rice, both police officers, initiated a proceeding to annul two determinations by the Incorporated Village of Malverne that denied them benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c for injuries sustained on duty. The Supreme Court dismissed their petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed this dismissal. The court clarified that General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits are intended for a narrow category of injuries, specifically those incurred during special work involving heightened risks inherent to police duties in the criminal justice process, a standard distinct and more stringent than that for Workers' Compensation benefits. Clements injured his back removing police tape after a flood, and Rice injured his elbow slipping at the police station. The court found that neither injury met the 'heightened risk' criteria required for General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits.

General Municipal Law § 207-cPolice Officer BenefitsOn-Duty InjuryHeightened RiskCriminal Justice ProcessWorkers' Compensation DistinctionStatutory InterpretationAppellate AffirmationPetition DismissalMunicipal Liability
References
16
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01291 [214 AD3d 796]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Matter of Delessio v. York Risk Servs. Group, Inc.

The petitioner, Vincent J. Delessio, appealed an order denying his petition for judicial approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding, finding that the delay in seeking approval was attributable to the petitioner's fault or neglect. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. The court emphasized that a party seeking nunc pro tunc approval must demonstrate the settlement's reasonableness, the absence of fault or neglect for the delay, and no prejudice to the opposing party. The Appellate Division concluded that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion given the petitioner's delay.

Workers' Compensation LawPersonal InjurySettlement ApprovalNunc Pro TuncJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewDelayFault or NeglectInsurance Carrier LienThird-Party Action
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,760 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