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

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Via Taxi, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained on March 31, 2007. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) denied coverage, citing the employer's prior policy cancellation due to nonpayment in 2003 and an outstanding balance at the time of reapplication in December 2006. SIF informed the employer in January 2007 that a new policy required debt satisfaction. Although the debt was cleared in March 2007, the employer did not reapply until May 11, 2007, making the new policy effective only from that date. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the employer lacked coverage on the injury date and imposed penalties under Workers’ Compensation Law § 26-a. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence for the Board's decision and rejecting the employer's estoppel argument.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoverageUninsured EmployerPenaltiesState Insurance FundPolicy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumsEstoppelAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Johnson & Higgins

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Johnson & Higgins (J&H) over a mandatory pre-65 retirement policy that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court previously found J&H liable and issued an injunction. J&H then sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for monetary and injunctive relief based on waivers signed by thirteen retired employee-directors, who had received $1,000 in exchange for waiving ADEA rights. The retired directors later repudiated these waivers, citing conflict of interest, economic duress, and undue influence. The EEOC opposed the waivers, arguing inadequate consideration, lack of voluntariness, and that J&H negotiated them without EEOC participation after a finding of liability. The District Court denied J&H's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration and the voluntariness of the waivers. The court also held that waivers entered into after a finding of liability and without EEOC participation are invalid as a matter of law.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEAWaiversSummary JudgmentKnowing and VoluntaryConsiderationOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActOWBPARepudiation of WaiversEEOC Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2006

Estes v. Metropolitan Warehouse, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the State Insurance Fund (SIF) was not liable for workers' compensation benefits to a claimant, leading the employer to appeal. The dispute arose after SIF cancelled the employer's policy due to nonpayment, despite the employer's subsequent payment and claims of not receiving cancellation notice. The court found that SIF strictly complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) requirements for cancellation, providing evidence of notice delivery. Furthermore, the doctrine of estoppel was deemed inapplicable, as the employer could not have reasonably believed the policy was reinstated given SIF's explicit warnings and communication. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported SIF's discharge from liability.

Workers' Compensation PolicyInsurance CancellationNonpayment of PremiumStrict ComplianceWorkers' Compensation Law § 54 (5)Doctrine of EstoppelPolicy ReinstatementAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityCarrier Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co.

Anthony Ramirez was killed in an accident while working for Leisure Pool Service, leading his estate and property owner Samuel Hillman to sue his employers for wrongful death. Hillman subsequently cross-claimed against the employers for indemnification and contribution. USF&G, the employers' insurer, disclaimed coverage for Hillman's cross-claim based on an employee bodily injury exclusion in their general liability policy. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for USF&G, upholding the exclusion. On appeal, the court dismissed Ramirez's appeal, modified Hillman's appeal by explicitly declaring the exclusion applied, and affirmed the judgment, finding the policy's exclusionary language clear and unambiguous regarding employee injuries and related contribution claims.

Insurance policyDeclaratory judgmentSummary judgmentEmployee exclusionBodily injuryContributionIndemnificationAppellate reviewPolicy interpretationAmbiguity
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hutchinson v. Lansing Conduit Corp.

Claimant asserted a work-related hearing loss in both ears and filed a workers’ compensation claim. An investigation revealed that Reliance National Insurance Company provided workers’ compensation insurance to the employer from January to July 1996. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined the date of disablement was March 13, 1996, making Reliance the responsible carrier. Reliance and the employer appealed, claiming an exclusion limited the policy's applicability to the claim. The Board's finding was affirmed as Reliance failed to produce a copy of the policy to substantiate their claim, despite being directed multiple times.

Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDate of DisablementPolicy ExclusionBurden of ProofAppellate DivisionAffirmationResponsible CarrierEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chenango Forks Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The dissent challenges the court's confirmation of a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination, which compelled a school district (petitioner) to reinstate Medicare Part B reimbursements. This PERB ruling overturned an arbitrator's decision that found no violation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding these reimbursements, citing a lack of binding past practice. The dissenting judge argues that PERB improperly disregarded its own post-arbitral deference policies, thereby allowing the Association to relitigate an issue already addressed in a fair arbitration. The dissent emphasizes the importance of arbitration finality and raises concerns about the protracted process and potential unconstitutionality of payments not explicitly authorized.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPublic Employment Relations BoardPast PracticeMedicare Part B ReimbursementsGrievanceImproper Practice ChargePost-Arbitral DeferenceAbuse of DiscretionLabor Law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 11,187 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