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. ADJ2710071 (STK 0215121)
Regular
Sep 11, 2017

WILLIAM FORD vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Gallo Glass Company's Petition for Removal. Gallo Glass sought disqualification of the administrative law judge (WCJ) alleging prejudice based on the WCJ's recommendation to deny their reimbursement request. The WCAB found that Gallo Glass failed to demonstrate the significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal under Labor Code section 5310. Furthermore, the petition did not meet the procedural requirements for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311, lacking the necessary sworn affidavit detailing the grounds for bias.

Petition for RemovalDisqualificationAgreed Medical ExaminerReimbursementWCJ prejudiceLabor Code section 5310Labor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10452affidavit
References
1
Case No. ADJ2411163 (STK 0151867) ADJ4480333 (STK 0153205) ADJ2289502 (STK 0166931) ADJ3381209 (STK 0166939)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

JAMES HERNANDEZ vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gallo Glass Company's petition for reconsideration of a findings and award. The Board affirmed the finding of 57.5% permanent disability for bilateral shoulders, neck, and back injuries resulting from cumulative trauma, based on parties' stipulations and credible medical evidence. The Board found no error in the rating instructions, as they followed the parties' stipulation regarding Dr. Kucera's report. Finally, the Board concluded Gallo Glass failed to meet its burden of proof to establish overlap for apportionment under Labor Code § 4664, therefore no reduction for prior awards was granted.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardStipulationsCumulative TraumaApportionmentPermanent DisabilityDisability Evaluation UnitRating SpecialistLabor Code Section 4664
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance

Plaintiff insurance companies, Continental Insurance Co. and American Casualty Co. (CNA), initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they have no duty to indemnify Robert A. Keasbey Co. (Keasbey) for asbestos-related claims, arguing that all claims fall under exhausted products hazard/completed operations coverage. The defendant class of asbestos claimants sought coverage under a new 'operations' theory not subject to aggregate limits. The trial court ruled in favor of the claimants, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court found that equitable affirmative defenses like laches applied against the claimants, who stood in Keasbey’s shoes. It further determined that coverage is triggered by 'injury-in-fact' rather than mere exposure to asbestos, and that the aggregate limits of the primary and excess policies were exhausted, thus absolving CNA of further indemnity obligations.

AsbestosInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentProducts HazardCompleted OperationsOperations CoverageAggregate LimitsExcess InsuranceBodily InjuryInjury-in-Fact
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yacono v. Buck Kreighs Co.

Waterman Steamship Co., Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted Buck Kreighs Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing Waterman's cross-claim for indemnity and contribution. The underlying action involved a longshoreman's personal injury aboard a Waterman vessel due to alleged negligence by Kreighs. Applying Federal maritime negligence law, the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of Waterman's cross-claims for common law contribution and indemnification, finding the plaintiff's prior dismissal against Kreighs on the merits was dispositive. The court also considered Waterman's claim for implied contractual indemnification under the Ryan doctrine but concluded that Waterman failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as it did not demonstrate that its potential liability was based on a non-fault premise. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss Waterman's cross-claims was affirmed.

Personal InjuryMaritime LawAdmiralty LawIndemnity ClaimsContribution ClaimsSummary Judgment AppealLongshoremen InjuriesRyan DoctrineWorkmanlike PerformanceFederal Maritime Negligence Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1988

Richiusa v. Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co.

Cologero Richiusa suffered personal injuries at Flushing Truck Repair Co. and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits as an employee of Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co., Inc. Richiusa then initiated a negligence action against both Flushing Truck and Kahn Lumber. The Supreme Court denied both defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court concluding that the workers' compensation award served as an exclusive remedy against Kahn and that Richiusa was a special employee of Flushing Truck, thereby barring the action against both defendants. The complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewNegligenceEmployment StatusStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1990

Michalak v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a third-party action, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Con Edison) sought common-law and contractual indemnification from Akron Wrecking Co., Inc. (Akron), an employer whose employee, Michalak, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Con Edison. Akron, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment to dismiss Con Edison's third-party complaint. The Supreme Court initially granted Akron's motion, dismissing the complaint entirely without prejudice to contractual indemnification. On appeal, the order was modified. The Appellate Division held that Con Edison, by requiring Akron to name it as an additional insured on primary and excess liability policies, waived its right to common-law indemnification up to the aggregate limits of those policies. Consequently, Akron's motion for summary judgment was granted only to the extent of dismissing claims for common-law indemnification, with the motion otherwise denied.

IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAdditional InsuredWaiver of IndemnityThird-Party ComplaintPersonal Injury Claim
References
6
Case No. ADJ27 10071 (STK 0215121)
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

William Ford vs. Gallo Glass Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gallo Glass Company's petition for reconsideration of an award to William Ford. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to allow amendment of the claim to include sleep disorder and respiratory injuries (COPD), finding these were part of a single cumulative trauma injury. The Board also upheld the deferral of the employer's reimbursement claim against an Agreed Medical Examiner. The employer's arguments regarding separate claims and insufficient medical evidence were rejected.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationAmendment of ApplicationCumulative TraumaSleep DisorderCOPDAgreed Medical ExaminerPetition for ReimbursementFindings of FactAward and Order
References
3
Case No. ADJ602790 (STK 0179563)
Regular
Jul 17, 2012

TRACEE MAWYER vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

This case involves Tracee Mawyer's workers' compensation claim against Gallo Glass Company for cumulative trauma injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's denial of injury to applicant's bilateral upper extremities, specifically carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board found Dr. Clayman's reports sufficiently supported an industrial injury to the upper extremities and awarded additional temporary disability for the period following carpal tunnel surgery. The case was returned for a new permanent disability rating for the upper extremity injuries.

Cumulative traumabilateral upper extremitiescarpal tunnel release surgerytemporary disabilitypermanent disability ratingreconsiderationDr. Claymanneck injuryshoulder injuryspine injury
References
0
Case No. STK 0204737
Regular
May 13, 2008

EDUARDO MACHADO vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gallo Glass Company's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior award finding applicant sustained industrial injury to his face, right shoulder, and related issues like sleeping problems, anxiety, and vision. While temporary disability was awarded for a specific period, permanent disability was deferred pending further evaluation, and future medical care was deemed necessary. The majority adopted the WCJ's report, finding sufficient evidence to link the anxiety, sleeping, and vision issues to the head injury, despite the defendant's arguments to the contrary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryJanitorTemporary DisabilityFuture Medical CarePermanent DisabilitySleeping ProblemsAnxiety
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1978

Waters v. Patent Scaffold Co.

This personal injury action arises from Charles Waters' fall from a scaffolding I-beam in 1970, allegedly unbolted by a co-worker. Waters was employed by I. Rosen & Sons, Inc., a masonry subcontractor. The defendants included the general contractor-owner and Patent Scaffold Co., which leased and initially installed the scaffolding. The court determined that Patent Scaffold Co. was an independent supplier, not a contractor, and thus not liable under Labor Law § 240, nor for common-law negligence or strict liability, as the alleged duties devolved upon the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order partially granting summary judgment to Patent Scaffold Co. was modified to grant summary judgment on all causes of action, and as modified, affirmed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240Summary JudgmentContractor LiabilityLessor LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityConstruction Site SafetyDuty to SuperviseStrict Liability
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,593 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