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. 2019 NY Slip Op 05255
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2019

Matter of Ferguson v. Eallonardo Constr., Inc.

Stephen Ferguson, a claimant, sustained a work-related right shoulder injury in August 2016. Following a consultant's finding of a 40% schedule loss of use, Ferguson's counsel was notified to obtain a competing medical opinion within 60 days. Counsel's subsequent request to cross-examine the carrier's consultant was denied by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, which deemed the request untimely and the opportunity waived. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, holding that the request for cross-examination was timely made at the first permanency hearing and was not contingent on filing a competing medical report. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UseRight to Cross-ExaminationTimeliness of RequestMedical Consultant ReportDue Process RightsWaiver of RightsAppellate ReviewPermanency HearingMedical Evidence
References
45
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00709 [169 AD3d 1355]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2019

Ferguson v. National Gypsum Servs. Co.

Plaintiff Dave Ferguson, an employee of nonparty Remedy Intelligent Staffing, LLC, commenced an action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained while working at defendant National Gypsum Services Company's facility. The Supreme Court denied defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court agreed with the defendant that it had exercised complete and exclusive control over the plaintiff's work, thus establishing a special employment relationship as a matter of law. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Special EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorkplace InjuryEmployer LiabilityControl TestQuestion of FactMatter of LawRespondent
References
5
Case No. ADJ4386818 (SAL 0091744) ADJ2744571 (SAL 0087231)
Regular
Jan 19, 2010

SUSAN FERGUSON vs. MONTEREY PENINSULA COUNTRY CLUB; SEDGWICK CMS, Administered By CIGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Susan Ferguson's reconsideration, affirming that her right to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) was barred by the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5. The Board found her rights did not vest before the January 1, 2009 effective date of the repeal, citing precedent from *Weiner v. Ralph's Company* and *Beverly Hilton Hotel v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Boganim)*. These decisions established that VRMA rights terminate upon repeal unless a final appellate decision exists, which Ferguson lacked. Therefore, the WCJ lacked jurisdiction after January 1, 2009, to grant VRMA benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMALabor Code Section 139.5Vesting of RightsSavings ClauseSection 5502(b)(3)En Banc DecisionsWeiner v. Ralph's CompanyBeverly Hilton Hotel v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. ADJ8298527
Regular
Mar 30, 2015

BRANDON COSTA vs. WOLSELEY INVESTMENTS, doing business as FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY for HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Brandon Costa's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, finding the applicant's testimony regarding providing medical reports to the employer not credible. Because the applicant failed to respond to the employer's request for documentation, his termination was deemed for good cause. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to temporary disability benefits during periods of temporary partial disability.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJcredibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.admitted industrial injurytemporary disabilitytemporary partial disabilitylight duty worktermination for cause
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferguson v. Callanan Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Eric Ferguson, an employee of the Town of the Town of Colonie, was injured while working at defendant's facility. On November 30, 1992, he was directed to manually spray the interior of a dump truck with a solution to prevent asphalt adhesion because defendant's automated spray station was inoperable. Plaintiff slipped and fell while climbing down from the truck after performing the task. He sued the defendant, arguing that the breakdown of the spray facility was the cause of his injuries. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that the inoperable spray mechanism merely furnished the occasion for the injuries and did not proximately cause them.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityProximate CauseNegligenceAppellate ReviewSlip and FallWorkplace InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityLack of CausationAffirmed Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Monarch Consulting, Inc v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA

This case addresses whether disputes concerning workers' compensation insurance Payment Agreements should be submitted to arbitration. The central question is if the McCarran-Ferguson Act prevents the application of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in connection with California Insurance Code § 11658, which mandates the filing of insurance documents. The Court determined that the McCarran-Ferguson Act is not activated because the FAA's application would not 'invalidate, impair, or supersede' California Insurance Code § 11658, given that California law at the time did not regulate arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. Consequently, the FAA governs the Payment Agreements. Furthermore, under FAA principles of severability, the enforceability of the Payment Agreements and their arbitration clauses, including questions of arbitrability, must be resolved through arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)McCarran-Ferguson ActInsurance LawWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCalifornia Insurance Code § 11658Reverse PreemptionContract LawArbitrabilityDelegation Clauses
References
43
Case No. Claim #4179
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

In Re Agway, Inc.

Reliance Insurance Company (in liquidation) filed a motion on March 23, 2006, requesting that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York declare it lacked jurisdiction over Reliance's claim against Agway, Inc. (the Debtors) or, alternatively, abstain from hearing the Liquidating Trustee's motion to expunge Reliance's claim #4179. Reliance argued that the McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse-preempted federal jurisdiction and that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court had primary jurisdiction under the 'first assuming jurisdiction' doctrine, or that Burford abstention was appropriate. The Liquidating Trustee opposed the motion, challenging Reliance's interpretation of the McCarran-Ferguson Act and the applicability of the abstention doctrines. The court denied Reliance's motion, affirming its core jurisdiction over the claim and finding Reliance's arguments for reverse-preemption, abstention, and first assuming jurisdiction to be without merit.

Bankruptcy LawJurisdictionMcCarran-Ferguson ActAbstention DoctrineInsurance LiquidationClaim ExpungementFederal PreemptionState LawCore ProceedingsStatutory Interpretation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferguson v. Wolkin

Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident, leading to a disability leave from her employment at Harrison Radiator. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement and likely an insurance carrier's request, she was examined by the defendant, an Impartial Medical Opinion Examiner. The defendant reported that the plaintiff was fit to return to work. Plaintiff returned to work and subsequently suffered a back injury, alleging it was caused by her premature return due to the defendant's negligent report, which she claimed failed to adequately consider a myelogram. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of physician-patient duty beyond the examination itself, or immunity. The court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that no physician-patient relationship extended to the reporting of medical findings in this context.

Medical MalpracticePhysician-Patient RelationshipImpartial Medical ExaminerSummary JudgmentDuty of CareDisability ClaimWorkers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentBack InjuryMyelogram
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Ferguson v. Lion Holding, Inc.

This case involves a dispute over deferred compensation following the acquisition of Lion Holding, Inc. by Hannover Riickversi-cherungs-Akteiengesellschaft. Plaintiffs, former senior officers of CIGI and majority shareholders of Lion, claim Hannover breached a Letter Agreement by failing to pay the full $100 million 'Earnout' tied to CIGI's underwriting goals, alleging manipulation of financials. Hannover moved for partial summary judgment, arguing plaintiffs did not formally and timely object to board decisions impacting the Earnout calculation. The court denied summary judgment regarding retention and inter-company expense allocations where factual issues existed regarding Hannover's potential active obstruction of plaintiffs' ability to object. However, summary judgment was granted for Hannover on claims related to carried reserves due to plaintiffs' failure to meet specific condition precedents and for claims outside the scope of the Special Operating Rules, as these would create new contractual rights not originally bargained for.

Breach of ContractDeferred CompensationEarnout AgreementSummary JudgmentGood Faith and Fair DealingImplied CovenantPrevention DoctrineInsuranceReinsuranceCorporate Acquisition
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferguson v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a school social worker, alleged personal injuries sustained from a collision with kindergarten students in a school hallway. She sued the New York City Department of Education and the City of New York for negligent supervision. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that a school district is not liable for negligent supervision in the absence of a special duty to the injured party. The appellate court affirmed this decision, reiterating that the special duty doctrine primarily applies to students, not adult school personnel, and that the defendants owed no such duty to the plaintiff in this instance.

Negligent SupervisionSchool District LiabilitySpecial Duty DoctrineSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryGovernmental FunctionIn Loco ParentisAppellate ReviewSchool EmployeesStudent Collision
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 18 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