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

Pierre v. Crown Fire Protection Corp.

This case involves appeals by Crown Fire Protection Corp. and PEM All Fire Extinguisher Corp. from a Supreme Court order denying their motions for summary judgment to dismiss a wrongful death complaint asserted against them. The New York City Transit Authority also cross-appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss third-party complaints filed against it. The appellate court dismissed the appeals of Crown and PEM as withdrawn. Furthermore, the order was modified to grant the Transit Authority's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the third-party complaint of Crown Fire Protection Corp. The court determined that Crown's work, which involved delivery and installation of fire extinguisher devices, did not fall under the categories described in General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. Finally, the decision clarified that a recent amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which limits third-party suits against employers, would not be applied retroactively to pending actions.

Wrongful Death DamagesSummary Judgment DenialThird-Party IndemnificationGeneral Obligations Law ViolationsWorkers' Compensation AmendmentsStatutory Non-RetroactivityContractual IndemnityConstruction vs. InstallationAppellate ModificationDismissal of Appeals
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2003

Theodoreu v. Chester Fire District

In this personal injury action, volunteer firefighter James Theodoreu, along with other plaintiffs, appealed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to defendants Chester Fire District and Sugar Loaf Engine Company, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law § 19 provides an exclusive remedy for injuries sustained in the line of duty, thereby barring claims against the fire district (as a political subdivision) and the fire company (due to an employer/employee relationship). Additionally, the defendant Witfield Architectural Group's cross-claims against the fire district and fire company were properly dismissed. This dismissal was based on Witfield's failure to demonstrate that the injured plaintiff suffered a "grave injury," a prerequisite for employer liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 for contribution or indemnity.

Volunteer Firefighters Benefit LawExclusive Remedy ProvisionSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryWorkers Compensation Law Section 11Grave InjuryEmployer LiabilityCross-claims DismissalAppellate AffirmationPolitical Subdivision
References
7
Case No. ADJ9821275
Regular
Apr 19, 2017

BARR EVERHART vs. EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Appeals Board rescinded the Amended Findings and Award and returned the case for further proceedings due to insufficient medical evidence regarding the latency period of the applicant's cancer and the specific carcinogens involved. The Board found Dr. Bronshvag's reporting contradictory and incomplete, failing to establish a reasonable link between the applicant's employment exposures and his cancer. The presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code § 3212.1 could not be properly applied without this essential medical evidence. Therefore, the matter is remanded for development of the medical record and a new decision by the WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryFirefighter CancerPresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.1Carcinogen ExposureLatency PeriodReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardMedical Treatment
References
8
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 3
Regular Panel Decision

County of Ulster v. Highland Fire District

This case involves consolidated appeals concerning the County of Ulster's group self-insurance plan for workers' compensation coverage. Several fire districts, including Highland, Woodstock, Town of Ulster No. 5, Phoenicia, Flattekill No. 1, and East Kingston, joined the plan between 1979 and 1985, despite being covered under their respective towns' existing participation. Upon discovering this, the fire districts withdrew, refusing to pay withdrawal fees and obtaining private insurance. Legal actions ensued, with the fire districts alleging fraudulent inducement and seeking fee cancellations and premium reimbursements, and the County suing for breach of contract and unpaid withdrawal fees. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the County, finding no "double charging" or damages to the fire districts since they received coverage and the cost simply shifted. The appellate court affirmed, noting the fire districts' fraud counterclaims were largely time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations, and even if not time-barred for withdrawal fees, it would be unfair to avoid payment given the received coverage and benefits.

Workers' Compensation Law § 63Group Self-Insurance PlanFire Districts EligibilityFraudulent InducementStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractWorkers' Compensation CoverageMunicipal LawAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dineen v. Islip Fire District

Decedent, an Assistant Chief of the Islip Fire Department, collapsed and died of an acute myocardial infarction while marching in a parade on December 4, 1982. His widow filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, arguing his death was work-related, citing lack of rest, changing a flat tire on a District vehicle, and parade participation. Conflicting medical testimony was presented regarding the causal relationship. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that these activities precipitated his fatal heart attack and were covered under Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law § 5 (1) (e) and (g). The District and its carrier appealed. The court affirmed the Board’s decisions, finding them reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, noting the Board's expertise in statutory construction regarding 'line of duty' activities.

Volunteer FirefightersWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHeart AttackCausationLine of DutyStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewVolunteer Firefighters' Benefit LawMedical ConflictParade
References
6
Case No. ADJ3853266
Regular
Sep 12, 2008

Duncan Grant vs. Contra Costa Fire Protection District, Contra Costa County Risk Management

The WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the July 1, 2008 Findings and Award, returning the matter for further proceedings to determine if the applicant's prostate cancer developed or manifested within 60 months of his last day of work.

WCABContra Costa Fire Protection DistrictDuncan GrantADJ3853266OAK 0318197ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationindustrial cumulative traumaprostate cancer
References
2
Case No. ADJ8121226
Regular
Apr 18, 2012

GILBERT CASTILLO vs. EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, FASIS administered by ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to amend a permanent disability indemnity award, claiming a clerical error in the amount calculated within the stipulations. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding no mutual mistake and emphasizing that the Board is not obligated to correct an administrator's error. The Board specifically declined to adopt the judge's recommendation to impose sanctions on the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEast Contra Costa Fire Protection DistrictAthens AdministratorsPermanent Disability IndemnityStipulationsClerical ErrorMutual MistakePetition for ReconsiderationAwardSanctions
References
1
Case No. ADJ10375501
Regular
May 30, 2017

JEFFREY FIJMAN vs. WEST STANISLAUS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, CITY OF PATTERSON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendants' Petition for Removal in the case of Fijman v. West Stanislaus Fire Protection District and City of Patterson. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, only granted upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the defendants failed to establish. The WCAB found that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision were issued. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWest Stanislaus Fire Protection DistrictCity of PattersonPermissibly Self-Insured
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02587 [237 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2025

Matter of Correra v. Millwood Fire Dist.

The petitioner, a volunteer firefighter, was terminated from the Millwood Fire District after a disciplinary hearing. The District alleged he provided false information on a medical questionnaire in 2020 by not disclosing a "permanently, partially disabled" Workers' Compensation Board designation. He was also charged with misconduct and insubordination for improperly obtaining a physical examination while suspended. The hearing officer found him guilty of both charges, recommending termination, which the District adopted. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the District's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the misconduct and insubordination charges, and that the penalty of termination was not disproportionate.

MisconductInsubordinationVolunteer FirefighterTerminationCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78False StatementsMedical QuestionnaireWorkers' CompensationSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keller v. Niskayuna Consolidated Fire District 1

The case involves a motion to dismiss a Title VII sex discrimination claim filed by an unnamed plaintiff against Niskayuna Consolidated Fire District 1, its Board of Fire Commissioners, and Joseph Battiste. Defendants argued the Fire District was not an 'employer' under Title VII as it did not meet the minimum of fifteen employees. The court examined whether individuals like the Treasurer, Secretary, Attorney, Fire Surgeon (considered independent contractors), and unpaid volunteer firefighters and Commissioners qualified as employees. Applying common law agency principles and the 'remuneration' requirement, the court determined these individuals did not constitute employees due to factors like lack of employer control, benefits, and guaranteed compensation. Consequently, the court found the Fire District lacked the requisite number of employees, thereby denying subject matter jurisdiction for the Title VII claim, and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment LawSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Employer DefinitionIndependent ContractorVolunteerEmployee BenefitsPayroll Method
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 5,703 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