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
Jun 10, 2008

Preserver Ins. Co. v. Ryba

This case involves a dispute between two insurers, Preserver Insurance Company and Northern Assurance Company of America, regarding the scope of an employers' liability policy. The central issue was whether Preserver's employers' liability coverage for East Coast Stucco & Construction, Inc. was limited to $100,000 or was unlimited, particularly after a construction worker, Arthur Ryba, suffered a grave injury in New York. The Court of Appeals found that the policy, issued and delivered in New Jersey, was not "issued for delivery" in New York, thus Preserver was not subject to New York's timely disclaimer rule under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). The Court further concluded that the policy's clear terms limited the employers' liability coverage to $100,000 per accident, rejecting arguments that New York insurance manual provisions for unlimited coverage applied when New York was listed as an "Other States Insurance" (Item 3.C.) state without explicit notification and reclassification to an "Item 3.A." state. The Appellate Division's order was reversed, limiting Preserver's indemnification duty.

Workers' CompensationEmployers' LiabilityInsurance PolicyCoverage LimitsDisclaimer of CoverageNew York LawNew Jersey LawInter-insurer DisputeConstruction AccidentGrave Injury
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00338 [168 AD3d 1249]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Cerobski v. Structural Preserv. Sys.

Claimant Marek Cerobski filed for workers' compensation following a workplace injury in June 2015 to his right leg and back. The employer and carrier (Structural Preservation Systems) failed to timely file a prehearing conference statement, leading to preclusion from raising defenses, including a later-asserted fraud claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant had committed fraud, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, determining that the carrier's fraud claim was untimely and defenses were waived due to their procedural defaults. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the carrier's failure to file the required prehearing statement and demonstrate good cause for delay resulted in a proper waiver and preclusion of its defenses, including the fraud allegation and relitigation of established issues like accident and notice.

Workers' Compensation LawPrehearing Conference StatementWaiver of DefensesFraud ClaimCausal RelationshipAccident and NoticeCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ7622191 ADJ10153210 ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258)
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

CATHERINA DE LAY vs. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, DIGNITY HEALTH, TRAVELERS

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision from July 19, 2019. The error resulted in the misidentification of adjudication numbers in the original decision. The Board is correcting this clerical error without granting reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The amended caption now accurately includes all relevant case numbers: ADJ7622191, ADJ10153210, ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), and ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical errorOpinion and DecisionReconsiderationadjudication numbersSuperior Nationalliquidationpermissibly self-insuredCIGADignity Health
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05941
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2025

Grala v. Structural Preserv. Sys., LLC

This case involves a consolidated action for personal injuries filed by Pawel Grala and his wife against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (Structural) and New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Structural subsequently filed a third-party action against Apex Development, Inc. (Grala's employer) and Maciej Witczak. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning motions for summary judgment on claims of contractual and common-law indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and Apex's counterclaims. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants on the cause of action alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance against Apex. In all other respects, the Supreme Court's order, which denied other branches of the third-party defendants' motion and granted the cross-motion to dismiss Apex's counterclaims, was affirmed.

Personal InjuryWorksite AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law
References
22
Case No. ADJ9105445
Regular
Dec 01, 2009

CHARLES STUMPH vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case concerns a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) opinion. The error involved misidentifying a defendant in the initial sentence of a paragraph. The WCAB has issued an order correcting this clerical error to accurately reflect that the applicant, Charles Stumph, entered into a compromise and release agreement with the County of Orange Sheriff's Department. This correction was made without granting further reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The Board's original decision rescinded the administrative law judge's findings and approved the compromise and release agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorReconsiderationLabor Code Section 132aFindings of Fact and OrderCompromise and ReleaseWCJWCAB Rule 10882Labor Code Section 5001Labor Code Section 5002
References
2
Case No. ADJ1312021
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

GRICELDA AREVALOS vs. PERSONNEL PLUS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order corrects clerical errors in a prior decision regarding Gricelda Arevalos's case. The errors involved an incorrect case number in the caption and an extra space within the case number later in the document. The Board is correcting these errors to reflect the accurate case number ADJ1312021 without further proceedings. This amendment ensures the official record is accurate.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCLERICAL ERRORSORDER CORRECTINGPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCASE NUMBER CORRECTIONADJ7430358ADJ0302021ADJ1312021SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGSCONTINGENT PROCEEDINGS
References
0
Case No. ADJ3283274 (VNO 0386537) ADJ4545965 (VNO 0386536) ADJ3421140 (VNO 0347301)
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

BARBARA STRAUSS vs. WEST MARINE, INC., CIGA for RELIANCE in liquidation, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY, FIREMAN'S FUND

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denying reconsideration. The error involved the incorrect assignment of ADJ and VNO numbers to the relevant case numbers. The WCAB is correcting this error to accurately reflect the case numbers as ADJ3283274 and VNO 0386537. This correction ensures proper record-keeping for applicant Barbara Strauss and defendants West Marine, Inc., et al.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeClerical ErrorCorrected Case NumberADJ NumberVNO NumberReversal of NumbersLiquidation
References
0
Case No. ADJ7003833, et al.
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

MARTHA AGUIRE, et al. vs. TWO STAR PERSONNEL, administered by SEDGWICK CMS, ; et al.

This order corrects clerical errors in a prior Board decision concerning a sanction against lien claimant Safety Works, Inc. The errors involved omitting a critical attachment listing cases for reconsideration and failing to include the firm Floyd, Skeren and Kelly on the service list. The Board is correcting these errors by adding the firm to the service list and attaching the missing document. This ensures all parties are properly notified and that the prior decision accurately reflects the proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorsPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ SanctionLien ClaimantService ListInterlineationDecision After ReconsiderationSafety WorksInc.
References
0
Case No. 2-07-151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2008

Gail Smith v. Dr. Alan Henson, D.C.

Gail Smith appealed a jury verdict against Dr. Alan Henson, D.C., concerning her negligence claim for alleged non-consensual cervical manipulation during treatment for work-related carpal tunnel syndrome and hip problems. Smith argued the trial court erred by excluding evidence related to workers' compensation and by making an improper comment on the evidence. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Smith failed to preserve error on her complaints by not objecting to the trial court's instructions or comments during trial. A dissenting opinion by Justice Sue Walker argued that an objection to a trial court's ruling is not required to preserve error, stating that the appellate rules disavow the necessity of objecting to a trial court ruling.

NegligenceMedical MalpracticeChiropractic TreatmentWorkers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureError PreservationJury InstructionsImproper CommentCivil ProcedureTexas Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ9271759
Regular
Jun 10, 2015

JIMMIE HARTMAN vs. TOWN OF SCOTIA COMPANY PACIFIC LUMBER

This case involves a clerical error in the date of service for a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board's May 10, 2015 decision incorrectly listed the service date as May 10, 2015. The Board has corrected this clerical error to reflect the accurate service date of June 10, 2015. This correction was made without granting reconsideration, as such errors can be corrected at any time.

Clerical errorDate of serviceCorrectionAppeals BoardReconsiderationSupplemental ProceedingsOrder Denying PetitionAmended dateWorkers' CompensationTown of Scotia
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,953 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