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

National Union Fire Insurance v. Great American E&S Insurance

Plaintiff Ethical Culture Fieldston School (ECF) and Tishman, the project manager, were named additional insureds on Solar's general liability policy with Great American. Solar employee, Lisa Best, was injured on site. While Solar filed workers' compensation, notice to Great American about Best's personal injury lawsuit against Tishman and ECF, and Solar's subsequent impleading, was delayed. Tishman and ECF sought a declaratory judgment that Great American was obligated to defend and indemnify them, and Solar cross-claimed. Great American moved for summary judgment, asserting untimely notice. The court found Solar's delay of over a year in notifying Great American was untimely and that Solar's belief of nonliability was unreasonable, especially given its contractual indemnification obligations. Consequently, Great American was not obligated to provide coverage to Solar in the underlying action.

Insurance Coverage DisputeTimely Notice RequirementCondition PrecedentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured StatusConstruction Site Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc.

The case, Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company, revolves around an insurer's disclaimer of coverage due to late notice. Plaintiff Great Canal, a property owner, faced an underlying personal injury lawsuit after a worker's accident and notified its insurer, Seneca, four months later, believing a general contractor's policy would cover the incident. The Supreme Court denied Seneca's motion for summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact regarding Great Canal's reasonable excuse for the delay. The appellate court affirmed this denial, with a concurring opinion by Catterson, J., strongly arguing for New York to reconsider its "no-prejudice" rule, which allows insurers to disclaim without proving actual harm from late notice. This opinion highlighted the perceived inequity of such forfeitures and suggested a shift towards a "prejudice" standard, while the dissent emphasized strict adherence to established state precedent.

Insurance LawNotice of ClaimTimely NoticeDisclaimer of CoveragePrejudice StandardNo-Prejudice ExceptionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentContract LawAppellate Review
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 1985

Ham v. Rumsey Sheet Metal, Inc.

In September 1980, the claimant's decedent injured his right great toe at work. He sought medical attention in September 1981 for a persistent infection, which was later diagnosed as malignant melanoma. Despite the amputation of his toe, the carcinoma metastasized, leading to his death in May 1982. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded death benefits, and the carrier appealed, citing lack of causal relationship and improper notice of injury. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the causal relationship and concluding that the employer had actual notice of the injury.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsMalignant MelanomaTraumaCausal RelationshipNotice of InjuryMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionAggravationAmputation
References
5
Case No. ADJ3341513 (VNO 0517589) ADJ4150961 (VNO 0517583)
Regular
Sep 08, 2009

Jeannie Lefevre vs. TRW, INC., CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., CNA CLAIMS PLUS-PORTLAND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jeannie Lefevre's petition for reconsideration, upholding a judge's decision that her admitted left great toe injury did not cause subsequent injuries to her ankles, heels, knees, hips, or back, nor a cumulative trauma injury. The Board found Dr. Kornblum's opinion, which cited Lefevre's extensive pre-existing foot issues, was more persuasive than Dr. Capen's. Defendant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as the issues raised were subsequently corrected by an Amended Findings and Award, from which they failed to seek further reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaApportionmentMedical EvidencePermanent DisabilityTemporary Disability IndemnityAmended Findings and AwardQualified Medical Evaluator
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1979

In re the Claim of D'Amore v. Town of Hempstead

A claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding injuries sustained during employment. The claimant was injured by a falling heater, striking his head, right big toe, and leg, leading to subsequent ulceration, gangrene, and amputations of the toe and leg. Although initial medical reports only noted a head injury, later testimony from the claimant and medical experts, Dr. Grauer and Dr. Ahmad, established the link between the workplace accident and the toe and leg injuries. The Board found the injuries causally related. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the findings.

AmputationGangreneUlcerationToe injuryLeg injuryHead injuryWorkplace accidentCredibilitySubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MBB Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

This is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order denying summary judgment for the appellant, MBB Realty Limited Partnership, and granting it for the appellee, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. The dispute centered on a commercial lease, which was amended to include percentage rent and later involved A&P's plan to further downsize, leading to a contested letter agreement regarding new percentage rent terms and property alterations. The Bankruptcy Court found the letter agreement void for lack of consideration, despite A&P's subsequent payments, a decision MBB appealed. The District Court affirmed, concluding that MBB's alleged consent to exterior changes or store downsizing did not constitute valid consideration, as these actions were either not explicitly agreed upon or already permissible under the existing lease terms, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. Consequently, arguments about ratification or the satisfaction of conditions precedent were deemed irrelevant for a void contract.

Contract LawConsiderationParol Evidence RuleSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealCommercial LeasePercentage RentLease AmendmentRatificationGood Faith and Fair Dealing
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2009

McKee v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Plaintiff Anthony McKee, an employee of Avon Contractors, sustained a lower back injury while working on a renovation project at a Waldbaums store, owned by Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company. He and his wife sued Waldbaums and the general contractor, C. Raimondo & Sons Construction Company, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, claiming injury from the method of work. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against Waldbaums via summary judgment, but later, upon searching the record, also dismissed claims against Raimondo and granted Avon summary judgment on the third-party complaint for contribution/indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed these decisions, finding that neither Waldbaums nor Raimondo had the necessary supervisory authority over McKee's work to be liable under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence. Furthermore, the court determined that the cited Industrial Code provisions related to Labor Law § 241 (6) were inapplicable to the worksite or the alleged equipment issues.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionWorkplace SafetyGeneral ContractorOwner LiabilitySubcontractorCommon-law Negligence
References
11
Case No. ADJ14930871
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Brenda De Leon vs. Robinson Pharma, Inc.; Great American Insurance Company; Cypress Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration filed by Great American Insurance Company, a defendant in Brenda De Leon's claim. Great American challenged a July 21, 2025, Amended Findings and Order by a workers' compensation arbitrator regarding the date of injury and liability for contribution from Cypress Insurance Company. The Board found the record incomplete, lacking crucial arbitration proceedings documents and a proper summary of evidence, thus violating due process. The Appeals Board issued a notice of intention to rescind the arbitrator's decision and return the matter if a complete record is not filed within 30 days.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's DecisionDue ProcessEAMSWCAB Rule 10995WCAB Rule 10914Record of ProceedingsSubstantial EvidencePetition for Contribution
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. ADJ9799720
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

HOWARD GARNER vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, legally uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to correct a transcription error, amending the findings to reflect an injury to the applicant's left "little" toe instead of the left "middle" toe. The applicant's petition for reconsideration was denied, as the Board found no evidence to support claims of injury to his hand, hip, or a deformed left little toe, and the medical examiner did examine the relevant body part. The decision affirmed the findings of no permanent disability or need for further treatment for the left little toe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactInmate LaborerPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerTranscription ErrorLeft Little ToePermanent Partial DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 12,852 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