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

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smallwood v. Mereda Realty Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the employment relationship of a building superintendent, the claimant, who sustained injuries. The Board determined that the claimant was both a general employee of Pueblo Nuevo Associates, the building owner, and a special employee of Mereda Realty Corporation, the managing company, holding both entities 50% liable for the claim. The claimant appealed this determination, specifically contesting the employment relationship with Pueblo Nuevo Associates. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of a general employment relationship with Pueblo Nuevo Associates, even though other evidence could have supported a different conclusion.

Employment RelationshipGeneral EmployeeSpecial EmployeeDual EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionBuilding SuperintendentRent-free Apartment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gould v. General Mills, Inc.

Plaintiff Gould, a longshoreman, was injured in 1973 while unloading a vessel and sued General Mills, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of warranty due to defective equipment. General Mills, the vessel's owner and cargo consignee, then filed a third-party complaint against Great Lakes Associates, Inc., the stevedore and Gould's employer, claiming negligence and breach of Great Lakes's warranty of workmanlike performance. Great Lakes moved for summary judgment, citing the exclusivity provision of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 905) as immunity from General Mills's indemnity claim. The court denied Great Lakes's motion, ruling that General Mills's claim was not solely based on Gould's injury but primarily on Great Lakes's alleged breach of independent contractual obligations and implied warranties to perform work safely.

Longshoreman injuryNegligence claimBreach of warrantyThird-party actionSummary judgment motionLongshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActExclusivity provisionIndemnification claimWorkmanlike performanceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Community Service Society v. Welfare Inspector General

The case concerns an application by the Community Service Society (CSS) and Gladys Baez to quash a subpoena issued by the Welfare Inspector General of the State of New York. The subpoena sought privileged communications between Baez and a certified social worker at CSS concerning her marital status and employment, information relevant to an investigation of alleged welfare fraud. Petitioners argued the communications were protected under CPLR 4508. The Inspector General contended Baez waived the privilege by signing a public assistance form and that the communication revealed contemplation of a crime. The court ruled that the signed consent form did not constitute a clear waiver of privilege. It also determined that information about marital status or employment does not inherently reveal the contemplation of a crime for the purpose of the CPLR 4508 exception. Consequently, the court granted the motion to quash the subpoena, affirming the privileged nature of the communications, but denied Baez's requests for an injunction and class action certification.

Social worker-client privilegeCPLR 4508Subpoena quashWelfare fraud investigationWaiver of privilegeConfidential communicationsClass action denialExecutive LawSocial Services LawPenal Code
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1979

Klebe v. General Electric Co.

The claimant's decedent, an employee in the employer’s laboratory, became ill and died from cerebral edema on September 14, 1971. The Workers’ Compensation Board investigated whether the brain condition was causally connected to his employment. The Board determined, based on record evidence including an impartial specialist’s testimony, that there was no causal relation between the decedent’s death and exposure to dioxane fumes, and thus no accident or occupational disease arising from employment. This finding rebutted the presumptions of causal connection under Workers’ Compensation Law sections 21 and 47. Consequently, the Board’s decision denying benefits was affirmed upon appeal, with the court noting the claimant's reliance on Matter of Matthews v General Elec. Co. was misplaced.

Workers' CompensationCausal ConnectionCerebral EdemaOccupational DiseasePresumption RebuttalAppellate ReviewEmployment-Related IllnessDioxane FumesMedical EvidenceBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foti-Crawford v. Buffalo General Hospital

A registered nurse sustained a back injury in July 1991 while concurrently employed by Buffalo General Hospital and Supplemental Health Care, leading to permanent partial disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits of $153.36 per week and ruled that the Special Disability Fund should reimburse the hospital's carrier for most of these benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Fund appealed, contending that reimbursement was unwarranted as the benefits did not exceed the maximum amount the hospital would have paid without concurrent employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation rational, especially given the claimant returned to work for the primary employer.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageAppellate ReviewBack InjuryNurseWorkers' Compensation Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banner Employment Agency, Inc. v. O'Connell

This case concerns the annulment of a respondent's determination that a petitioner employment agency violated Section 185 of the General Business Law by charging an excessive fee. The dispute centered on the classification of an employee for fee calculation, with the respondent advocating for 'Class A1' and the petitioner for 'Class B'. The employee possessed an engineering background and technical experience. The court concluded that the employment did not fit into 'Class A1' or the professional aspect of 'Class B', instead falling under 'Class B's' residual 'other employment' category. Consequently, the respondent's initial determination was annulled.

Employment Agency FeesGeneral Business LawEmployment ClassificationStatutory InterpretationExcessive ChargeJudicial ReviewAnnulmentSkilled WorkerNon-Professional EmploymentClass B Employment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McLeod v. Ground Handling, Inc.

This case addresses whether an accident occurring on a public street, away from the immediate place of employment but near the workplace, arose out of and in the course of employment. The court examined the 'gray area' where risks of street travel merge with employment risks, emphasizing the need for a special hazard at the accident point and a close association of the access route with the premises. The Board found no special hazard on the county road, which was used by the general public and not controlled by the employer. Consequently, the accident was deemed a risk shared by the general public, not related to the claimant's employment. The decision affirming the Board's finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was upheld.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-premises AccidentSpecial Hazard RuleStreet RiskGoing and Coming RulePublic RoadAccess RouteEmployer ControlAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ7892653
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

PETER ALVAREZ vs. CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the order that joined the Office of the Attorney General as a party. The Board found the Attorney General was not a necessary party as the applicant clearly identified the California National Guard as their employer. Furthermore, the Board raised a jurisdictional issue, as National Guard service under Title 32, which may apply here, generally precludes state workers' compensation benefits. The case is returned to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction.

Petition for RemovalOrder Joining Party DefendantCalifornia National GuardState Active DutyTitle 32Title 10Inactive Duty TrainingMilitary and Veterans CodeNachbaurJurisdiction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a June 16, 2009, determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB's determination reversed an earlier administrative law judge's decision, finding that the NYCTA had committed an improper labor practice by unilaterally implementing new standards for off-duty secondary employment without negotiating with the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100. PERB directed the NYCTA to make whole certain employees and subsequently filed a cross-petition to enforce its order. The court found that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that an employer's restriction on nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the NYCTA's petition, dismissed the proceeding on the merits, and granted PERB's cross-petition for enforcement of its remedial order.

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 11,647 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