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
Jan 05, 2009

Glew v. Cigna Group Insurance

Plaintiff George Glew, a volunteer EMT, contracted hepatitis C and other illnesses after a needle stick injury in March 1994 while on duty. He filed a claim with CIGNA, the insurer, under an accident and sickness policy. CIGNA denied the claim, asserting the policy was 'accident only' or that notice was not timely. Glew sued to recover disability payments. The court found that CIGNA's 1994 accident and sickness policy, though lost, had terms similar to a 1995 VFIS policy, providing indefinite coverage for infectious diseases. The court ruled that Glew proved his total and permanent disability was caused by the needle stick and that he complied with the policy's notice provisions, thus entitling him to total disability benefits from CIGNA.

Insurance CoverageDisability BenefitsInfectious DiseaseNeedle Stick InjuryHepatitis CEMT WorkerVolunteer Ambulance WorkerLost PolicySecondary EvidenceBurden of Proof
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. v. Travelers Group, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, compelling The Travelers Group to indemnify plaintiffs for a $2.3 million judgment in a personal injury action, and denied Travelers' cross-motion. The Travelers Group had issued a workers' compensation policy to FTJ Environmental, Inc., whose employees were injured while working in New York City. The policy's coverage was explicitly conditioned on the work in New York being necessary or incidental to FTJ's work in New Jersey, which was listed as the coverage state. The appellate court found no evidence in the record to support this condition and noted that the policy limit was $100,000 per accident, not $2.3 million. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order, denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation PolicyEmployers Liability PolicyPolicy CoverageLabor Law § 240Burden of ProofInsurance Policy LimitsAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ames v. Group Health Inc.

Plaintiffs, including trustees John Ames and Michael Pantony of the United Welfare Fund-Welfare Division (UWF) and participant Fred Tremarcke, sued Group Health Incorporated (GHI) under ERISA and HIPAA. They alleged GHI illegally discriminated against Tremarcke by denying his health coverage after he went on disability leave, arguing it violated HIPAA's anti-discrimination provisions and breached the insurance policy. Tremarcke's employer, Classic Chevrolet, continued making health contributions on his behalf, and a 'Side Letter of Understanding' with his union attempted to maintain his 'active employee' status. The court ultimately ruled in favor of GHI, finding that Tremarcke did not meet the eligibility requirements of the UWF-GHI plan, which required working over 20 hours per week, and that the 'Side Letter' could not unilaterally alter GHI's contractual obligations. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing the second and third causes of action.

ERISAHIPAACOBRAHealth InsuranceDisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractMulti-employer FundCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
6
Case No. CA 10-02269
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2011

ELLICOTT GROUP, LLC v. STATE OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE DEPT.

This case addresses an appeal concerning the authority of the State of New York Executive Department Office of General Services (OGS) to mandate a prevailing wage clause in a lease agreement with Ellicott Group, LLC, for privately owned property. OGS had adopted a policy requiring prevailing wages for certain work, even if it did not meet the technical definition of 'public work' under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court, Erie County, had granted summary judgment to Ellicott Group, LLC, concluding that OGS lacked statutory authority and violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, holding that OGS, as an administrative body, usurped the legislative function by enacting a policy defining when prevailing wages should be paid, a role reserved for the Legislature.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 8Labor Law Article 9Public WorkLease AgreementExecutive AuthorityLegislative FunctionSeparation of PowersAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08958
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Brickman Group Ltd., LLC

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute where the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sought defense and indemnification as an additional insured under policies issued to its contractor, The Brickman Group Ltd., LLC, by ACE American Insurance Company and Everest National Insurance Company. The underlying personal injury actions, stemming from an ice-related multi-vehicle collision at JFK Airport, ultimately found the Port Authority solely at fault. The Appellate Division, First Department, ruled that while the insurers had no duty to indemnify the Port Authority for its liability, they were obligated to reimburse its defense costs incurred from the inception of the underlying actions through the jury's verdict. This decision was based on policy language defining a "suit" by the allegations in the complaint rather than the ultimate factual determination. The court also affirmed the denial of the Port Authority's request to amend its complaint against Brickman Group, citing the statute of limitations and res judicata.

Insurance Coverage DisputeAdditional Insured CoverageDuty to Reimburse Defense CostsIndemnification DutyCommercial General LiabilityExcess Liability PolicyPolicy Language InterpretationStatute of Limitations DefenseRes JudicataPersonal Injury Action
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nationwide Insurance v. Empire Insurance Group

This case concerns a dispute over insurance coverage. Marcos Ramirez was injured while working for Fortuna Construction, Inc. at premises owned by 11194 Owners Corp. Fortuna had subcontracted work from Total Structural Concepts, Inc. and agreed to add Total Structural as an additional insured on its general liability policy with Empire Insurance Group and Allcity Insurance Company. Ramirez sued 11194 Owners Corp. and Total Structural. Total Structural then commenced a third-party action against Fortuna. Nationwide Insurance Company, as Total Structural's insurer and subrogee, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Empire and Allcity after discovering Total Structural was an additional insured on their policy, demanding coverage for the Ramirez action. The Supreme Court granted Nationwide's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding that Total Structural failed to provide timely notice of the Ramirez action to Empire and Allcity as required by the policy. The court emphasized that timely notice is a condition precedent to recovery and that lack of diligent effort to ascertain coverage vitiates the policy. Consequently, the appellate court granted Empire and Allcity's cross-motion, declaring they are not obligated to defend or indemnify Nationwide/Total Structural.

Insurance CoverageTimely NoticeCondition PrecedentDeclaratory JudgmentAdditional InsuredSubrogationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal InjuryGeneral Liability Policy
References
8
Case No. 25 NY3d 907
Regular Panel Decision
2015-XX-XX

Government Employees Insurance v. Avanguard Medical Group, PLLC

This case addresses whether no-fault insurance carriers are obligated to pay facility fees to New York State-accredited office-based surgery (OBS) centers for the use of their premises and support services. The court concluded that neither existing statutes nor regulations mandate such payments. Plaintiffs, a group of GEICO insurers, successfully sought a declaratory judgment that they are not legally required to reimburse Avanguard Medical Group, PLLC, for OBS facility fees, totaling over $1.3 million. The decision affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling, emphasizing that OBS facility fees are not explicitly covered by statute or fee schedules, nor do they fall under reimbursable "professional health services" as per 11 NYCRR 68.5. The court highlighted the distinct regulatory frameworks for OBS centers compared to hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, declining to mandate policy changes best left to the legislature.

No-Fault InsuranceOffice-Based Surgery (OBS)Facility FeesInsurance LawBasic Economic LossFee SchedulesWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of Financial ServicesStatutory InterpretationRegulatory Framework
References
16
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06200
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Matter of NYAHSA Servs., Inc. v. Special Funds Group

This case concerns an appeal by NYAHSA Services, Inc., the workers' compensation insurance carrier for St. Patrick's Nursing Home, from an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc. The underlying matter involved Karen DiNoia, who sustained injuries in 2001 during employment and settled a third-party personal injury action in 2005 for $400,000. Although NYAHSA consented, the Special Funds Group's consent was not obtained at the time, which is crucial for the carrier to be reimbursed from the Special Disability Fund. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing a lack of required documentation. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the decision, finding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial relief was not the petitioner's fault, and the Special Funds Group was not prejudiced, thus granting the petition.

Nunc Pro TuncPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalAppellate ReviewSpecial Disability FundInsurance Carrier ReimbursementSupreme Court DiscretionDelayPrejudiceReasonableness of Settlement
References
10
Case No. 02 Civ. 7659(SAS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. NYC Transit Auth.

This case involves a dispute between several labor unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary regarding the legality of NYCTA's sick leave policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unions challenged the policy's medical inquiry requirements, arguing they violated ADA provisions against inquiries that may reveal a disability. The NYCTA justified its policy by citing the need to curb sick leave abuse and ensure workplace and public safety. The court applied the framework established in Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services. It found that curbing sick leave abuse was a legitimate business necessity but only justified the policy for employees on a narrowly-defined "sick leave control list." The court also determined that ensuring safety was a vital business necessity, justifying the policy for safety-sensitive employees, specifically bus operators, but required further factual development for other employee groups. Ultimately, the court issued a declaratory judgment, clarifying the permissible scope of the policy's medical inquiries and rejecting the Authority's defenses of unclean hands and laches.

ADA ComplianceSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiryEmployment DiscriminationBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyPublic SafetyLabor Union LitigationCollective BargainingBus Operator
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 9,551 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