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. 2011-610
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2011

Held v. STATE OF NEW YORK WORKERS'COMPENSATION BD.

This case involves an appeal by William Held Jr., as Chairman of Contractors Compensation Trust, and others, against the State of New York Workers' Compensation Board and others. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals of New York on its own motion, citing that no substantial constitutional question was directly involved. Additionally, a motion for leave to appeal was denied with costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.

Appellate ProcedureConstitutional LawLeave to Appeal DeniedWorkers Compensation BoardContractors Compensation TrustCourt of AppealsMotion DismissedLegal CostsReproduction DisbursementsNew York State
References
3
Case No. ADJ4120960
Regular
May 06, 2011

JESSICA HAWIT vs. NATIONS CAPITAL GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) that included a phrase about the applicant being held harmless, which was not in the original settlement agreement. The Appeals Board found the petition for reconsideration was timely due to defective service of the OACR. While affirming the settlement amount, the Board amended the OACR to strike the "applicant is to be held harmless" language, as the WCJ could not unilaterally rewrite the parties' agreed-upon terms.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWCJDefective ServiceTimelinessLien ClaimsHeld Harmless
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Held v. Hall

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addressed the compatibility of holding a county legislator position and a municipal Police Chief position concurrently. The respondent, elected as a Westchester County Legislator, sought to retain his role as Police Chief of the Town/Village of Harrison. Petitioners argued that these two offices were incompatible under common law and a local Westchester County law (Local Law No. 10). The court, presided over by John P. DiBlasi, J., found both common-law incompatibility and a statutory bar applied. It ruled that by accepting and qualifying for the county legislator position on December 3, 2001, the respondent, by implication, resigned from his Police Chief position as per established common law. Consequently, the court vacated a prior preliminary injunction that had prevented the respondent from fully exercising his powers as a county legislator, affirming his eligibility for the legislative role since December 3, 2001.

Incompatible OfficesDual Office HoldingPublic OfficerCounty LegislatorPolice ChiefCommon Law IncompatibilityStatutory BarLocal LawWestchester CountyImplied Resignation
References
38
Case No. ADJ234762, MON 0356645, ADJ2358121, MON 0356646, ADJ2518900, MON 0356647, ADJ3669155, VNO 0479411, ADJ684024, VNO 0479412, ADJ806318, VNO 0547904
Regular
Aug 20, 2013

DALILA CHOTO vs. LSG SKYCHEFS, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The WCAB granted reconsideration to review an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) where a C&R settled claims for $87,000. The applicant seeks to set aside the OACR and strike a clause stating the defendant is not held harmless for treatment outside the MPN, alleging its inclusion was a mistake. The Board vacated the OACR, returning the case for a hearing on the settlement's adequacy by a new WCJ. One Commissioner dissented, arguing the applicant signed the C&R acknowledging understanding and that inadvertence is insufficient grounds to vacate.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseMPNmedical liensinadvertencemistakeneglectvacateadequacy
References
2
Case No. ADJ6552646
Regular
Mar 26, 2014

CYNTHIA MOLINA vs. NORDSTROM, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior ruling that held the applicant responsible for medical bills incurred outside Nordstrom's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The WCAB determined that a "hold-harmless" clause in a stipulated award had no legal effect, as employers cannot assign their statutory duty to provide medical treatment. Lien claimants are subject to the WCAB's exclusive jurisdiction and can only recover from the employer under Labor Code section 4600 if the employer neglected to provide treatment. For self-procured treatment under section 4605, the employee is personally liable, and providers must pursue collection in civil court, not through WCAB liens.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNordstrom Inc.Medical Provider NetworkStipulations with Request for AwardLabor Code Section 3751(b)Labor Code Section 4605Hold-Harmless ClauseLien ClaimsSelf-Procured TreatmentExclusive Jurisdiction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2004

Duane Reade, Inc. v. Local 338 Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Union

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Local 338 and individual defendants. The dismissal of claims against Local 338 was required because the plaintiff failed to plead that each individual union member authorized or ratified the unlawful action, referencing the Martin v Curran rule. The court also held that individual defendants cannot be held liable for acts committed in their capacity as union representatives, even if those acts were not authorized by the union membership, unless conduct unrelated to their official roles is alleged. Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend was denied.

CPLR 3211(a)(7)Dismissal of ComplaintUnion LiabilityIndividual CapacityAuthorization and RatificationUnion RepresentativesMotion to DismissLeave to AmendAppellate AffirmationNew York Courts
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sorbello

This case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of felony murder and robbery. The primary issue on appeal is the application of CPL 240.75, which allows for harmless error analysis in cases of Rosario rule violations, replacing the previous per se reversal rule. The court determined that CPL 240.75 applies retroactively to all appeals heard after its effective date. Finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the non-disclosure of Rosario material materially contributed to the trial's outcome, the court deemed the error harmless. Additionally, the judgment was modified to mandate concurrent sentences for the murder and robbery convictions, as the robbery served as the predicate felony for the murder charge.

Criminal Procedure LawRosario RuleHarmless Error AnalysisStatutory RetroactivityFelony MurderRobbery Second DegreeSentence ConcurrencyAppellate Division DecisionDiscovery Rule ViolationWitness Impeachment
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2005

Morales v. D & A Food Service

In this case, an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed the dismissal of a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendant Gamillo M. Santomero, III, a landlord. The plaintiff was injured while performing repairs for defendant D & A Food Service, the tenant, without the landlord's knowledge or consent, in violation of the lease. The court ruled that the landlord, an out-of-possession owner, could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the absence of a nexus between the owner and the worker. Precedent, including Abbatiello v Lancaster Studio Assoc., was cited to support the finding that an owner must have knowledge or consent of the work to be held liable, as the statute aims to place responsibility on those best able to control the workplace.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Out-of-Possession OwnerLandlord LiabilityLack of KnowledgeConsent to WorkLease ViolationLadder FallNexus RequirementAppellate Affirmation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Connor v. City of New York

The case concerns whether the City of New York can be held liable for its inspector's failure to detect a gas leak that caused a fatal explosion. Despite a city inspector issuing a "blue card" certifying conformity to regulations, a subsequent gas leak from an uncapped pipe and lack of a shut-off valve led to an explosion, killing 12 people. The City was found liable in two trials. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a municipality cannot be held liable for failure to enforce a statute or regulation without a "special relationship" between the injured parties and the municipality, which was not established in this instance. The court emphasized that general welfare regulations do not create a duty to individuals, and extending such liability would pose a crushing financial burden on municipalities.

Municipal LiabilitySpecial Relationship DoctrineGovernment ImmunityNegligence of InspectorGas ExplosionBuilding Code ViolationsFailure to Enforce RegulationsTort LiabilityPublic WelfareAppellate Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,197 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