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. ADJ7352698
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

Jessica Sanchez vs. Nordstrom Rack

This case involves sanctions imposed on applicant's counsel, Russell L. Glauber and the Law Offices of Glauber and Berenson, for submitting a petition with an already existing exhibit. The Appeals Board found this action violated Rule 10842(c) and rejected the claim of clerical error as an excuse for the duplicative filing. Consequently, counsel was ordered to pay a $250.00 sanction for bad faith actions and tactics.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsRussell L. GlauberLaw Offices of Glauber and BerensonLab. Code§ 5813Rule 10842(c)Clerical ErrorBad Faith
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 09253 [134 AD3d 898]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2015

Glauber v. G & G Quality Clothing, Inc.

In this action for breach of contract, the defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The order denied their cross motion to compel arbitration and granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction preventing the termination of his health insurance coverage. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that an agreement to arbitrate must be explicit and unequivocal, which was not found in the severance agreement, nor sufficiently covered by a separate shareholders' agreement. Furthermore, the court found that the Supreme Court appropriately granted the preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, a risk of irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of equities. Thus, the order was affirmed in part, denying arbitration and upholding the injunction.

Contract DisputeArbitration ClausePreliminary InjunctionHealth InsuranceShareholders' AgreementSeverance AgreementAppellate DivisionExpress Agreement to ArbitrateIrreparable HarmEquitable Relief
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walton v. Devi Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Krum & Sons, Inc., sustained a debilitating eye injury on January 2, 1990, when struck by a wood chip while engaged in tree removal for Devi Corporation. He subsequently initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Devi, Berenson Pari-Mutuel of New York, Inc., and Roy Howard & Associates, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) for lack of protective eyewear. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint via summary judgment, leading to an appeal by the plaintiff. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court concluded that the tree removal task did not fall under the statutory definition of "construction work," as it neither affected the structural integrity of the motel sign nor involved its construction, thereby rendering Labor Law § 241 (6) inapplicable.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 241(6)Construction Work DefinitionSummary JudgmentTree RemovalWood Chipping AccidentScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityOwner Liability
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Workers' Compensation Board v. Madden

Plaintiff, the New York Healthcare Facilities Workers’ Compensation Trust, assumed administration after becoming insolvent. It sued professional defendants (Berenson & Company, LLP, Lorette Belgraier, Steven Glaser) and former trustee defendants for various claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court partially granted motions to dismiss. On appeal, the Court affirmed the dismissal of common-law indemnification claims against professional defendants but reversed the dismissal against trustee defendants, finding a common duty to ensure trust solvency. The Court also largely upheld the continuation of breach of contract claims against trustee defendants and professional defendant Belgraier, and a fraud claim against Berenson, rejecting arguments regarding time-barring or disguised malpractice.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustInsolvencyBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractCommon-Law IndemnificationMotions to DismissStatute of LimitationsLegal MalpracticeFraud
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Utica Mutual Insurance v. Style Management Associates Corp.

This dissenting opinion addresses a subrogation action concerning responsibility for property damage during a residential renovation project for Harris Berenson and E. Tyler Berenson, where two fires occurred. Judge Maltese argues against the majority's reliance on Labor Law personal injury cases, asserting that the Nassau County Administrative Code mandates licensed and insured contractors like Style Management Corp. to safeguard homeowners. The dissent highlights that Style Management Corp. was listed as the contractor on the building permit and carried the necessary insurance, suggesting their responsibilities should not be obviated even if others oversaw the work. Furthermore, the opinion contends that dismissing the complaint against the Style defendants would leave injured workers without Workers' Compensation coverage. The dissent concludes that numerous triable issues of fact exist regarding the Style defendants' role as the general contractor, supervising the work site, or contributing to the fire's cause, thus supporting the Supreme Court's denial of their motion for summary judgment.

SubrogationHome Improvement ContractorNassau County Administrative CodeLiability InsuranceWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentGeneral ContractorBuilding PermitDissenting OpinionTriable Issues of Fact
References
8
Case No. ADJ1036181 (LAO 0861182) ADJ1313689 (LAO 0861180) ADJ3257740 (LAO 0861181)
Regular
Dec 23, 2019

CONNIE EDGE, RONNIE EDGE vs. WORLD CITRUS WEST, NATIONWIDE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior decision on attorney fee allocation in a workers' compensation case. The Appeals Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, giving great weight to their credibility determinations. The Judge found no substantial evidence to overturn their prior ruling on the division of fees between two attorneys, Glauber and Hershewe. The Judge's report detailed that the fee division was based on Labor Code Section 4906(d), considering responsibility, care, time, and results obtained by each attorney, and found no ex parte communication occurred.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Credibility DeterminationsEx Parte CommunicationDue ProcessLabor Code Section 4906(d)Attorney FeesCompromise and ReleaseCumulative TraumaSpecific Injury
References
0
Showing 1-6 of 6 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