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. SJO 208304
Regular
Jun 24, 2008

JAVIER VALDOVINOS vs. LABOR CONNECTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, RELIANCE INSURANCE, KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION, HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT CO, ROYAL SUN & ALLIANCE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision that denied CIGA's petition for contribution. The Board rescinded the arbitrator's decision and returned the case for further proceedings, finding that crucial Labor Connection documents regarding applicant's special employment by Kaiser Cement were improperly excluded from evidence. This allows for a fuller development of the record on the issue of employment before a new decision is issued.

CIGALabor ConnectionCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance InsuranceliquidationKaiser Cement CorporationHanson Permanente Cement CoRoyal Sun & Alliance InsuranceSpecial EmploymentContribution
References
6
Case No. CV-23-1425
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Harold Hanson (dec'd) Donna Hanson

The Appellate Division reversed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to Donna Hanson for her deceased husband, Harold Hanson. Harold, a field service technician for General Electric, died from an acute aortic dissection, which claimant alleged was work-related. The case involved extensive procedural history, including a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially establishing the claim, followed by the Board's rescission and subsequent preclusion of claimant's medical evidence, specifically reports from Dr. Stern and Dr. Basri. The WCLJ ultimately disallowed the claim due to a lack of medical evidence, a decision affirmed by the Board. The Appellate Division found the Board's reasoning for precluding evidence inconsistent with its assertion that claimant had "ample opportunity" to submit proof, and also noted the Board's reliance on an inaccurate reading of the record, necessitating a remittal for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath Benefits ClaimCausal RelationshipAortic DissectionHypertensionMedical Report AdmissibilityProcedural ErrorsPresumption of CompensabilityBurden ShiftingAppellate Division
References
9
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. ADJ2359824
Regular
Sep 15, 2008

JAVIER VALDOVINOS vs. LABOR CONNECTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES for RELIANCE INSURANCE, in liquidation, KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION / HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT CO, ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE

Royal & Sun Alliance's petition for reconsideration of the June 24, 2008 Opinion And Order is denied. The issue of applicant's employment must first be addressed by the Arbitrator.

CIGAliquidationspecial employmentLabor Connectioncontributionreimbursementinterim orderreconsiderationremandArbitrator
References
3
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. 2025 NYSlipOp 01409 [236 AD3d 1151]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

Matter of Hanson v. General Elec. Co.

Claimant Donna Hanson sought workers' compensation death benefits for her spouse, a field service technician, who died from an acute aortic dissection after collapsing at work. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) later reversed, finding a lack of causally-related medical evidence after precluding claimant's expert reports due to procedural issues. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, citing inconsistencies and reliance on an inaccurate reading of the record regarding the preclusion of claimant's medical evidence, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipPresumption of CompensabilityAortic DissectionHypertensionMedical EvidenceReport PreclusionAdministrative ReviewAdmissibility of Evidence
References
9
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. M.V. Woods Construction Co.

In this dissenting opinion, Judges Scudder and Kehoe argue that the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant M.V. Woods Construction Co., Inc.'s cross motion to set aside a jury verdict. The plaintiff, Charles C. Smith, was injured while lifting cement blocks onto an eight-foot-high scaffolding, and the jury found a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (f). The dissenting judges contend that the Industrial Code provision, concerning safe vertical passage, is inapplicable because the plaintiff's injury was not related to accessing working levels but to manual material handling. They conclude that any alleged violation was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's back injury, and the complaint against the defendant should have been dismissed.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(f)Scaffolding SafetyProximate CauseJury VerdictDissenting OpinionMaterial HandlingSafe Means of AccessAppellate Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,658 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