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. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. ADJ1888124 (SAL 0111884) ADJ3322590 (SAL 0079903)
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

MARIA NUNEZ vs. MANN PACKING COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation; STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an applicant's workers' compensation claims after Fremont Compensation Insurance Company became insolvent. CIGA argued it should be relieved of liability because the State of California, as the applicant's employer through IHSS, constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code Section 1063.1. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the State of California does not qualify as "other insurance" under the relevant statutes. This distinction is based on the State not being required to obtain workers' compensation insurance or a certificate of self-insurance like private or other public employers.

CIGAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyliquidationlegally uninsuredother insuranceInsurance Code Section 1063.1covered claimsIn-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)statutory limitationsself-insurance
References
5
Case No. ADJ2279830 (LBO 0290929) ADJ3851198 (LBO 0362934)
Regular
Sep 05, 2008

SUSAN ORTLOFF vs. ANAHEIM GENERAL HOSPITAL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's reconsideration, affirming the denial of contribution for Fremont's pre-insolvency benefits due to untimeliness under Labor Code §5500.5(e). However, the Board reversed the denial of CIGA's reimbursement claim for post-insolvency benefits, finding that Argonaut provided "other insurance" and is therefore liable for reimbursement. The Board ordered Argonaut to reimburse CIGA for benefits paid after Fremont's insolvency.

CIGAFremont CompensationArgonaut Insurancecontributionreimbursementinsolvencycumulative traumastipulated awardstatute of limitationsLabor Code 5500.5(e)
References
11
Case No. GRO 0022416
Regular
Mar 24, 2008

GERALD RICE vs. ALASCO RUBBER & PLASTICS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL SURETY/FIREMAN'S FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior decision. The Board found that the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) is solely liable for the applicant's industrial injury benefits. This is because the insolvent insurer, Fremont Compensation Insurance Company, was the only insurer on the risk during the one-year period preceding the applicant's cumulative trauma injury.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCIGAFREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANYINSOLVENCYLIQUIDATIONCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONNATIONAL SURETY/FIREMAN'S FUNDALASCO RUBBER & PLASTICSLABOR CODE SECTION 5500.5CUMULATIVE TRAUMA INJURY
References
1
Case No. MON 0271251 MON 0271252 MON 0271253
Regular
Jan 09, 2008

CONSUELO AMADOR vs. JIMWAY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns liability for an applicant's cumulative trauma injury where both Fremont Indemnity (represented by CIGA) and the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) provided coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed an arbitrator's decision, finding that SCIF, as a solvent insurer jointly and severally liable for the injury, constitutes "other insurance." Therefore, under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9), CIGA is not liable for the applicant's cumulative trauma injury.

CIGAFremont IndemnitySCIFcumulative traumajoint and several liabilitycovered claimother insuranceInsolvencyLabor Code section 5500.5Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08227
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Matter of Kelly v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

In 2006, claimant Grace Kelly established a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) repeatedly sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, which was denied by Workers' Compensation Law Judges. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these denials and assessed $500 penalties against both SIF and its counsel, Walsh and Hacker, for filing an application for review without reasonable grounds. Walsh and Hacker appealed the penalty imposed against them to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division found insufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that Walsh and Hacker's application lacked reasonable grounds, and therefore reversed the penalty against them, modifying and affirming the Board's decision.

PenaltiesAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAttorney SanctionsAdministrative LawBoard DecisionJudiciary Law § 431
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McKenzie v. New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund

Claimant, an exercise rider at Belmont Racetrack, suffered pelvic injuries in December 2003 while working a horse. Despite an expired license, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established his case and determined he was a covered employee of the New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, holding the Fund responsible for medical treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed, referencing *Matter of Adames v New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.* (15 AD3d 696 [2005]), which established that an exercise rider is a covered employee of the Fund under relevant Workers’ Compensation Law and Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law provisions, irrespective of license expiration. The court found the Fund’s remaining contentions lacked merit.

Exercise RiderWorkers' CompensationJockey Injury Compensation FundExpired LicenseCovered EmployeeThoroughbred RacingPelvic InjuryAppellate DecisionBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burroughs v. Empire State Agricultural Compensation Trust

Claimant, a dairy farmer, sustained work-related injuries in November 2001 when he fell from a ladder. A claim for workers’ compensation benefits was filed, which the carrier controverted, disputing claimant's employee status. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that the employer was a limited liability corporation and claimant was an executive officer, thus covered under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld the WCLJ’s findings. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the record was insufficient to establish the employer’s true status or claimant’s relationship to it, and remitted the matter for further development of the record.

Workers' CompensationEmployment StatusLimited Liability CorporationExecutive OfficerCoverage DisputeAppellate ReviewRemittalRecord DevelopmentNew York Workers' Compensation LawDairy Farmer
References
2
Case No. 532391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Richman v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Claimant, Rebecca Richman, appealed three decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding her claim for a work-related right shoulder injury. She alleged a fall at work on January 19, 2018, but did not seek medical treatment for 19 months. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Board reversed, finding that Richman failed to submit sufficient, credible medical evidence to demonstrate a causally-related injury and denied her claim. The Board subsequently denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's finding of no causally-related injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation ClaimCausation (Medical)Shoulder InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyBoard ReversalAppellate Division ReviewBurden of ProofCredibility of EvidenceOsteoarthritis DiagnosisDelayed Medical Treatment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

W & G Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board

This court case addresses whether an arbitrator's decision, upholding a 'just cause' discharge of an employee after a compensable accident, prevents the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) from hearing a claim of discriminatory discharge under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The court ruled that such an arbitration decision does not preclude the WCB, emphasizing the overriding public policy to have retaliatory discharge claims determined by the WCB as the statutorily mandated exclusive forum. It distinguishes between a contractual just cause discharge and a discriminatory firing, noting that the former could be a pretext for the latter. The court denied the petition to preclude the WCB, asserting that the public policy underlying Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 takes precedence over issue preclusion principles. It also suggests that the WCB can consider arbitration decisions as persuasive evidence but not conclusive.

Workers' Compensation Law § 120Discriminatory DischargeRetaliatory FiringIssue PreclusionArbitration AwardPublic PolicyWCB JurisdictionCPLR Article 78Just Cause DischargeCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 21,026 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