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
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Miller

Plaintiff, a gas pump attendant, was injured when a customer's car, operated by a co-worker, suddenly moved forward, striking him. The defendant customer had left her car running and unattended. Plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence. The defendant then initiated a third-party action against the co-worker and the service station owner. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing no factual issues existed and failure to state a cause of action. Special Term denied this motion, finding triable factual issues. This appeal affirmed Special Term's decision, holding that the complaint stated a cause of action in negligence and that factual disputes precluded summary judgment. The court also clarified that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) did not bar the action against the third-party owner for her own negligence, and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a) was not applicable as the car was not "unattended" under the statute.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation ImmunityThird-Party LiabilityVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate CauseDuty of CareAppellate Court Decision
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2000

Simon v. Philip Morris Inc.

This memorandum and order addresses the preliminary issues of class certification in a nationwide smoker class action. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of individuals who developed lung cancer due to smoking defendants' cigarettes. The defendants, referred to as "Tobacco," challenge the claims' substantive and factual viability, as well as the suitability for class action, citing varied state laws under the Erie doctrine and due process concerns. Senior District Judge Weinstein, acknowledging the complexities, reserves the decision on class certification and grants a preliminary evidentiary hearing. The court explores potential approaches to manage diverse state laws and discusses the necessity of plaintiffs demonstrating a feasible trial structure for a large class.

Class ActionSmoker Class ActionTobacco LitigationLung CancerClass CertificationRule 23Erie DoctrineConflict of LawsMultistate LitigationDue Process
References
12
Case No. ADJ4525685
Regular
Apr 08, 2011

MAGDALENA CASTILLEJA vs. COUNTY OF TULARE, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, Summit Surgical Center (formerly Sierra Pacific Surgical Center), seeking reconsideration of a decision denying their lien for $11,799.50. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration because the lien claimant failed to provide any legal or factual support for their petition. The Board also issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions of $500 against the lien claimant and their representative for filing a frivolous and unsubstantiated petition. The lien claimant argued the carrier should be liable for treatment costs without the provider having to prove compensability.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantIndustrial InjuryAOE/COEMedical TreatmentMedical Legal ServicesSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Bad Faith
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Transamerica Insurance

Judge Sullivan dissents from the majority's decision, which found a factual issue and implicitly reversed a lower court's grant of summary judgment. The dissent argues that the motion court correctly dismissed the complaint, as Hartford's estoppel arguments, based on an insurance certificate and Transamerica's actions, lacked merit due to Hartford's lack of reliance and inability to claim subrogation rights. Furthermore, the dissent emphasizes that the factual issue regarding policy inconsistencies was improperly raised for the first time on appeal, violating established legal principles for defeating summary judgment.

insurance coverageestoppelsummary judgmentappellate reviewfactual disputecertificate of insurancepolicy exclusionsworkers' compensation benefitsdisclaimer of coveragereservation of rights
References
4
Case No. ADJ3755565
Regular
Apr 27, 2010

JEAN CARDINALE vs. FIRST BLACKHAWK FINANCIAL CORPORATION, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the original award to the applicant for industrial injuries to multiple body parts. The defendant's primary argument for reconsideration was the alleged improper admission of a psychological report, claiming it was not listed on the pre-trial conference statement. However, the Board found this contention to be factually incorrect, as the report was indeed listed and acknowledged by both parties. Consequently, the Board initiated removal on its own motion to issue sanctions against the defendant's law firm for filing a verified petition containing demonstrably false statements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCumulative InjuryPsyche InjuryCervical Spine InjuryMedical Report AdmissibilityPre-Trial Conference StatementPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 5813
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2000

Royal Insurance Co. of America v. Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund

The claimant sought 50% reimbursement of defense costs from the State Insurance Fund (Fund) for litigation related to a bridge collapse, after the Fund ceased contributions. The Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the claimant, finding an implied contract. On appeal, the Fund argued State Finance Law § 112 (2) (a) precluded such a contract without Comptroller approval and that factual issues existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding the Fund acts as a private insurer in litigation and is estopped from denying the implied contract, also finding no material factual issues precluding summary judgment.

Reimbursement of Defense CostsImplied ContractState Insurance FundCo-insuranceSummary JudgmentEstoppelState Finance LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hagins v. State

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal concerning a partial summary judgment denial by the Court of Claims. The dissenters, Boomer and Balio, argue that the Court of Claims correctly found factual issues regarding whether the abutment wall, where the claimant was injured, constituted part of the work site at the time of the accident. They emphasize that the claimant, despite warnings, chose to walk on an unfinished wall with rebar rods rather than a safer ground-level path across a closed highway. The dissent contends that the judicial role is to identify, not resolve, factual disputes during summary judgment motions, and that the majority inappropriately settled such issues. Consequently, they believe that the partial summary judgment should have been denied, upholding the lower court's decision.

Summary JudgmentDissenting OpinionLabor LawWork Site SafetyFactual IssuesAbutment WallNegligenceAppellate ReviewCourt of ClaimsClaimant Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petramale v. Local No. 17 of Laborers' International Union

The court addresses defendants' motion for summary judgment, which argued that the plaintiff failed to exhaust internal union remedies by intentionally not appearing at a rescheduled meeting. The court denies the motion, asserting that even if the plaintiff defaulted, disciplinary actions—a ten-year suspension from meetings and a substantial fine—might have been based on an unauthorized ground (a free speech violation), which constitutes an exception to the exhaustion requirement. The opinion highlights that actions alleged to be void do not require exhaustion of administrative procedures. Furthermore, factual disputes exist regarding the International union's affirmance of the Local's order and whether the issue of free speech was properly presented on appeal. The court also rejects the defendants' argument that the case is moot due to the voluntary rescission of the suspension and fine, stating that the extent of the damages is a factual issue for the trier of fact.

Summary JudgmentExhaustion of RemediesInternal Union RemediesFree SpeechLabor LawUnion DisciplineFirst AmendmentMootnessFactual DisputeDistrict Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2004

Barraco v. First Lenox Terrace Associates

This Supreme Court Order addresses multiple motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the Lenox defendants after an unsupported sidewalk bridge overhang collapsed, causing him injury. However, the court modified the decision to deny O&S's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against it, citing existing factual issues regarding O&S's supervisory control as a statutory agent. Motions for contractual and common-law indemnification by the Lenox defendants and O&S were denied as premature due to unresolved negligence claims. Bridgeworks' motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's common-law negligence claim was denied due to factual issues about negligent construction, while Appollon's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims against it.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSidewalk Bridge CollapseStatutory AgentSupervisory ControlNegligenceConstruction SiteWorkplace Safety
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 9,521 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