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

Root v. Eastern Refractories Co.

The plaintiff, representing a decedent exposed to asbestos from 1950-1993 and later diagnosed with asbestosis and mesothelioma, brought suit against Eastern Refractories Co., Inc. The plaintiff alleged the decedent's exposure was due to Eastern's ERCO-Mat product while employed at Syracuse University. Eastern moved for summary judgment, asserting it did not supply asbestos-containing products to the university during the relevant period. However, the plaintiff presented conflicting deposition testimony from the decedent and an Eastern employee, indicating that ERCO-Mat blankets contained asbestos and were supplied by Eastern. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment, as the plaintiff successfully raised a triable issue of fact, leading to the reversal of the lower court's order, denial of the summary judgment motion, and reinstatement of the complaint against Eastern Refractories Co., Inc.

AsbestosMesotheliomaAsbestosisSummary JudgmentProduct LiabilityERCO-MatEastern Refractories Co., Inc.Onondaga CountyAppellate CourtReversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 1990

Long v. Mattingly

This case, an appeal from a motor vehicle collision damages action, focuses on the determination of interest due to plaintiffs Geneva I. Long and Raymond C. Long. Following jury verdicts and subsequent remittiturs, the Appellate Court further reduced the awards to $50,000 and $10,000 respectively. The defendants appealed the trial court's decision regarding post-judgment interest, arguing against its allowance from the original verdict date and claiming the appellate mandate lacked instructions. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling, clarifying that remittiturs are made by the successful party's waiver, not by court modification, thus entitling plaintiffs to statutory interest on their reduced judgments from the jury verdict date. Additionally, the court addressed the plaintiffs' right to 'interest on interest' and denied their request for damages due to frivolous appeal, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment with interest accruing from November 29, 1990.

Motor vehicle collisionPost-judgment interestRemittiturJury verdictAppellate reviewStatutory interestTennessee lawDamagesFrivolous appealWaiver
References
7
Case No. ADJ2312638
Regular
Dec 10, 2012

WILLIAM HERN vs. GEORGE MATTINGLY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for removal by the defendant, George Mattingly and Allstate Insurance Company, seeking to rescind an order that closed discovery. The defendant argued that discovery closure denied due process and contravened an upcoming Labor Code section. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Issues regarding new vocational evidence requirements under Labor Code section 5703(j) can be addressed when the case is set for trial.

Petition for RemovalDiscovery ClosureDue DiligenceDue ProcessLabor Code Section 5703(j)Vocational Rehabilitation ReportsSB 863WCJ Report and RecommendationOff CalendarGood Cause
References
0
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 32865(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Pomahac v. TrizecHahn 1065 Avenue of the Americas, LLC

The plaintiff slipped and fell in a building lobby due to a wet floor and subsequently sued the building manager (TrizecHahn) and maintenance company (ABM) for negligence, alleging a failure to place sufficient mats. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they took reasonable precautions by deploying two mats, a caution sign, and having an employee mop. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions on reargument. However, the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants, stating their actions constituted reasonable precautions as a matter of law. The court also held that failure to adhere to an internal policy for mat placement does not automatically equate to negligence if that policy's standard exceeds reasonable care. A dissenting opinion argued that a triable issue of fact existed concerning the reasonableness of precautions given recurring hazardous conditions and insufficient mat coverage.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityWet FloorBuilding MaintenanceReasonable Care StandardInternal PolicySlip and FallTerrazzo FloorAppellate Division
References
24
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04771 [241 AD3d 892]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2025

Impagliazzo v. Judlau Contr., Inc.

Ciro Impagliazzo, a foreman for a plumbing subcontractor, sustained injuries after falling on a rebar mat dotted with protruding Nelson studs at a Metropolitan Transportation Authority construction project. He commenced an action against Judlau Contracting, Inc., the general contractor, and the MTA, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing these causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, finding that the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether the rebar mat constituted a dangerous condition, whether they had actual or constructive notice, and if traversing such a mat was an inherent risk of the plaintiff's work.

Labor Law § 200Common Law NegligenceConstruction SafetyDangerous ConditionPremises LiabilityWorker InjurySummary Judgment DenialAppellate ReviewRebar MatNelson Studs
References
12
Case No. 2023-02-7158
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2024

Webb, Jonathan v. Gem Care, Inc.

The case involves Jonathan Webb, an employee, who claimed a left knee injury at work on August 21, 2023, after tripping on a mat. He had a pre-existing history of left leg issues, including prior workers' compensation settlements and severe osteoarthritis. The employer, Gem Care, Inc., disputed the claim, presenting evidence that contradicted Mr. Webb's testimony regarding the mat's thickness and his credibility, citing a criminal conviction for dishonesty. The Court found Mr. Webb not credible due to inconsistencies, lack of witnesses, delayed injury reporting, and his extensive medical history concerning his left leg. Consequently, the Court denied his request for benefits, concluding he was unlikely to prove a work-related injury.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingKnee InjuryCredibility AssessmentPre-existing ConditionDegenerative ChangesOrthopedic CareEmployee TerminationWorkplace IncidentMatsuo (work site)
References
1
Case No. ADJ1448881 (VNO 0460995)
Regular
Sep 06, 2017

CLEMENTE MEJIA vs. PACIFIC MAT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a prior decision disallowing the balance of a lien for medical treatment provided by Dr. Arroyo. The administrative law judge found Dr. Arroyo failed to prove the reasonableness of services beyond progress and permanent and stationary reports, and that he was adequately compensated for reasonable services. The WCAB held that Labor Code section 4600(b), requiring medical treatment to be consistent with the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) to be considered reasonably required, applied retrospectively to all open cases, including this one. Therefore, the original decision disallowing the remaining portion of the lien was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactOrderMedical treatment lienIndustrial injuryCumulative periodPermanent disabilityReasonableness of services
References
1
Case No. ADJ1448881 (VNO 0460995), ADJ1459734 (VNO 0385398)
Regular
Jan 19, 2011

CLEMENTE MEJIA vs. PACIFIC MAT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CIGA for FREMONT

The Appeals Board admitted Dr. Capen's November 10, 2009 report into evidence and affirmed the WCJ's Amended Joint Findings and Award. SCIF's petition for reconsideration primarily argued that Dr. Capen's report was not substantial evidence for apportionment, but the Board found SCIF waived this argument by not raising it explicitly. The majority concluded Dr. Capen's November 10, 2009 report provided substantial evidence for apportionment, affirming the WCJ's findings. One Commissioner dissented, finding the report was not substantial evidence and that further development of the record was needed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAmended Joint Findings and AwardWCJindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentState Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF)CIGAliquidationCambridge
References
6
Case No. GRO 0023124
Regular
Dec 31, 2007

CAROLINA CAMACHO vs. TEAMWORK, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, DEN-MAT, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Zenith Insurance sought reconsideration of a WCAB decision that found CIGA not liable because other insurance was available, ordering Zenith to reimburse CIGA for benefits paid. Zenith argued the WCAB lacked jurisdiction, claiming the contribution issue was subject to mandatory arbitration under Labor Code § 5275. The WCAB denied reconsideration, ruling that § 5275 did not apply as this was a general/special employment situation, not a cumulative trauma case, and Zenith's insurance constituted "other insurance" relieving CIGA of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAZenith Insurance CompanyContributionMandatory ArbitrationLabor Code Section 5275Labor Code Section 5500.5General EmploymentSpecial Employment
References
5
Case No. ADJ1459734 (VNO 0385398) ADJ1448881 (VNO 0460995)
Regular
Jun 05, 2009

CLEMENTE MEJIA vs. PACIFIC MAT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, XESSXSPORT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT INSURANCE, In Liquidation

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the prior award due to the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Capen's reports for permanent disability and apportionment, which were previously found to lack substantial evidence. The WCJ erred by issuing new ratings based on these same inadequate reports, even after the Appeals Board's directive. The Board rescinded the award and returned the case for further development of the medical record regarding apportionment and permanent disability, specifically requiring evidence that meets the standards set in Escobedo v. Marshalls.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific MatState Compensation Insurance FundXESSXSPORTCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationFremont Insuranceliquidationindustrial injuryback injuryleft hip injury
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 26 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