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
Oct 15, 1998

High View Fund, L.P. v. Hall

Plaintiffs, The High View Fund, L.P. and The High View Fund, filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims against E. William Hall and Karen W. Hall for violations of federal securities laws, fraudulent inducement, Delaware Blue Sky laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract. The claims stem from the plaintiffs' $1 million investment in United Golf Properties, Inc. and the defendants' alleged misuse of the company's assets and misrepresentations in an Offering Memorandum. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court, presided over by District Judge Scheindlin, granted dismissal for the federal securities law claims and common law fraud claims, allowing leave to amend. Additionally, the conversion and breach of contract claims were dismissed with prejudice. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for the Delaware Blue Sky law claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractDelaware Blue Sky LawInvestment Fraud
References
50
Case No. 2014-1081 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2016

High Quality Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Group

This case involves an appeal concerning assigned first-party no-fault benefits sought by High Quality Medical Supplies, Inc., as assignee of Charles Botwee. The defendant, Mercury Ins. Group, appealed an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. Mercury Ins. Group contended that billing for durable medical equipment not listed in a fee schedule is not compensable. However, the Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, citing 11 NYCRR 68.5, which specifically permits reimbursement for healthcare services not explicitly covered by fee schedules, thereby rejecting the defendant's argument.

No-Fault BenefitsFirst-Party BenefitsDurable Medical EquipmentFee ScheduleSummary JudgmentAppellate TermAssigned BenefitsInsurance LawReimbursementCivil Court
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06638 [175 AD3d 1446]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2019

Roblero v. Bais Ruchel High Sch., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed two Supreme Court orders in a personal injury action. Plaintiff Cristian Roblero, injured after falling from a scaffold while performing plumbing work for Bais Ruchel High School, Inc., was not provided with necessary safety devices. The Supreme Court granted Roblero summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied Bais Ruchel's motions to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and for summary judgment on its third-party contractual indemnification claim against ADD Plumbing, Inc. The Appellate Division concluded that Roblero established a prima facie case for Labor Law § 240 (1) and Bais Ruchel failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Additionally, Bais Ruchel failed to establish it lacked supervisory authority for the Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims or its entitlement to indemnification.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNondelegable DutyContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionConstruction Site Safety
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Employment Relations Board v. Christ the King Regional High School

The New York State Employment Relations Board initiated a proceeding to enforce its order against Christ the King Regional High School, which mandated good-faith bargaining with the Lay Faculty Association and reinstatement of teachers. The School challenged this order on First Amendment grounds, specifically citing the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, arguing for an absolute exemption from the New York State Labor Relations Act. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division ruled in favor of the Board. The Court of Appeals affirmed these decisions, concluding that the Act, being a neutral and generally applicable regulatory measure, did not violate the First Amendment rights of the religious school in its labor relations with lay faculty. The court also upheld the reinstatement of teacher Gaglione, finding insufficient evidence of religious entanglement to preclude it.

First AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseEstablishment ClauseLabor LawCollective BargainingReligious SchoolsLay Faculty RightsEmployment DisputesJudicial ReviewAdministrative Order Enforcement
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Darowski v. High Meadow Cooperative No. 1

Joseph Darowski initiated a personal injury lawsuit against High Meadow Cooperative No. 1 and Anker Management Corporation for injuries sustained during asbestos removal. High Meadow and Anker subsequently filed a third-party action against Darowski's employer, Asbestos Industries of America, Inc. (AIA), seeking defense and indemnification due to a contract breach regarding liability insurance. AIA appealed an order that denied its motion to compel further discovery and granted summary judgment to High Meadow and Anker, declaring AIA's duty to defend and indemnify. The appellate court modified the order, ruling that AIA's motion to depose High Meadow and Anker representatives should be granted, but otherwise affirmed the summary judgment against AIA due to its failure to procure adequate insurance. The decision also clarified that a recent 1996 amendment to the Workers' Compensation Law, limiting third-party actions against employers, would not apply retroactively to this pending case.

Asbestos ExposurePersonal Injury DamagesThird-Party IndemnificationDuty to DefendSummary Judgment AppealDiscovery DisputeDeposition OrderBreach of ContractLiability Insurance PolicyWorkers' Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. VNO 0504722
Regular
Feb 13, 2008

FRANCK PETER vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; TPA: CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case concerns a police officer injured in the line of duty, who sought further temporary disability benefits beyond the 104 weeks already paid. The applicant argued that "Injured on Duty" pay should not count towards the statutory limit, and that an exception for high-velocity eye injuries should apply. The Board denied reconsideration, holding that "Injured on Duty" pay is included within the 104-week limit under Labor Code section 4656, citing precedent, and found no evidence of a high-velocity eye injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPolice OfficerTemporary Disability IndemnityInjured on Duty (IOD)Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 4.177Labor Code Section 4656Radesky v. City of Los AngelesHigh-Velocity Eye Injury ExceptionMedical Evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ665716
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

JUDD GLOVER vs. ACCU CONSTRUCTION, FIRST COMP OMAHA

This case concerns an applicant who sustained a high-velocity eye injury on June 8, 2006, along with injuries to his head, brain, and psyche. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding of a high-velocity eye injury and ongoing temporary total disability. However, the Board remanded the case to the trial level for further development of the record to determine if the eye injury contributes to the applicant's continuing temporary disability, which is necessary for extended benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F). Issues of additional temporary disability indemnity and attorney's fees were deferred pending this determination.

High-velocity eye injuryLabor Code section 4656Temporary total disabilityReconsiderationFindings & AwardCompensable consequenceNexusAmputation exceptionCruz v. Mercedes-BenzFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
17
Case No. ADJ11111709
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

STEVEN GONZALES vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., SERVICEMASTER ANYTIME, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) award of temporary disability benefits exceeding the 104-week cap. The Board found sufficient evidence, including applicant's testimony, to establish a "high velocity eye injury" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F). The Board reasoned that a reasonable inference could be drawn from the applicant's description of hitting a nail that splintered, striking his eye at high velocity. Defendant's arguments regarding the applicant's inability to identify the object or its speed, and a post-trial QME report, were rejected.

High velocity eye injuryLabor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F)Temporary disability indemnity104 week capTemporarily totally disabledTemporarily partially disabledPetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJQME report
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Mosaic & Terrazzo Welfare, Pension, Annuity & Vacation Funds v. High Performance Floors, Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various employee benefit funds, brought this action under ERISA and LMRA to collect employer contributions from defendants HPF, Inc. and High Performance Floors, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that HPF was an alter ego of, or single employer with, High Performance, aiming to evade obligations under a collective bargaining agreement. Following a non-jury trial, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold concluded that High Performance and HPF were indeed alter egos and constituted a single employer. This determination was based on compelling evidence of shared management, employees, operations, equipment, and a common business purpose, coupled with an intent to circumvent union obligations. Consequently, the court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for the unpaid contributions.

Alter Ego DoctrineSingle Employer DoctrineERISA EnforcementLMRA LitigationUnpaid Employer ContributionsCollective Bargaining Agreement BreachEmployee Benefit Fund ProtectionCorporate DisregardLabor Relations LawJoint and Several Liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1990

Paone v. Westwood Village

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action at a construction site. The injured worker and his wife initially sued Westwood Village (owner) and Holiday Management Associates, Inc. (general contractor). Westwood and Holiday then filed third-party complaints against Colonial Mechanical Co. (subcontractor) and High Tech Heating Co. (subcontractor and employer of the injured plaintiff). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted summary judgment to Colonial and High Tech, dismissing the third-party complaints. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Colonial and High Tech had no control over the work that caused the injury, thus absolving them of liability under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. The court emphasized that the duty to provide a safe workplace rests with the party having authority to control the injury-producing activity, in this instance, Holiday as the general contractor.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkplace SafetyOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityControl of Work Site
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 364 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