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

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the general contractor, commenced an action against its subcontractor's insurer, National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, seeking a declaration of coverage. Home Depot, individually and as assignee of Westward Contracting, Inc., sought to compel National Fire to defend and indemnify it as an an additional insured in an underlying action, and to indemnify Westward. The Supreme Court denied Home Depot's discovery motion, granted National Fire summary judgment declaring Home Depot was not an additional insured, and denied National Fire's motion to dismiss Home Depot's claims as Westward's assignee for lack of standing and for summary judgment on the indemnification obligation to Westward. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding Home Depot was not an additional insured and that the assignment to Home Depot was valid and did not relieve National Fire of its indemnification obligation to Westward.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredIndemnificationSummary JudgmentStandingAssignment of ClaimsSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorCommercial General Liability PolicyAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02757
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2022

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. State of New York

This case involves Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., as an assignee, appealing orders that denied its motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract claim against the New York State Insurance Fund (SIF). Home Depot sought coverage under an Employer's Liability Policy issued by SIF to Bryan's Home Improvement Corporation, covering damages for employee injuries where recovery is permitted by law, specifically for

Breach of ContractEmployer's Liability PolicyCollateral EstoppelGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAssignee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Renz v. Home Depot USA, Inc.

Claimant, an employee of Home Depot USA, Inc., sustained injuries in 2005. Initially, a left shoulder injury was found, later amended to include a right shoulder and a potential neck injury, prompting diagnostic tests. Subsequently, claimant stipulated to a schedule loss of use for her arms, explicitly denying other body parts, leading to a May 2007 decision awarding benefits and closing the case. Despite this, claimant sought to reopen the claim for her neck and other injuries, but both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied the request, finding the neck claim barred by the prior stipulation due to a lack of forthrightness regarding her neck condition. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Board rationally found the stipulation binding, especially considering medical guidelines and evidence that the neck was symptomatic before the agreement, thus also precluding related carpal tunnel syndrome claims.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseNeck InjuryStipulationReopening ClaimCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCredibilityMedical GuidelinesAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. SRO 0139219
Regular
Aug 11, 2008

JENNIFER BALKOWITSCH vs. HOME DEPOT

This case involves an applicant denied self-procured medical treatment by her employer, Home Depot, after failing to secure an MPN physician within reasonable proximity who would accept her. The Appeals Board reversed the initial finding, holding Home Depot liable for self-procured treatment. This decision was based on Home Depot's failure to prove it reasonably provided an MPN physician in accordance with accessibility standards, constituting a neglect or refusal to provide reasonable medical treatment.

Medical Provider NetworkMPN access standardsself-procured medical treatmentreasonable medical treatmentneglect or refusalapplicant's residenceemployment dutiesadministrative regulationemployer's obligationphysician availability
References
9
Case No. ADJ2311576
Regular
Nov 13, 2012

JOANNE GARCIA vs. THE HOME DEPOT USA, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Home Depot's petition for reconsideration because it was based on an interlocutory order, not a final decision. Reconsideration is only permissible for final orders that determine substantive rights and liabilities. Pre-trial orders concerning evidence or trial settings are considered interlocutory and thus not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB also noted that the lien claimant was not aggrieved.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilitiesWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5900Aggrieved Party
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

Riley v. HSBC USA, INC.

Plaintiff Dawn Riley alleged employment discrimination based on race against HSBC USA, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Riley's termination—poor job performance. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment in part to dismiss HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant and denying it as to HSBC Bank USA, National Association, finding material issues of fact regarding pretextual discrimination. Chief Judge William M. Skretny accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the objections, and partially granted/denied the motion for summary judgment, terminating HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant. The case will proceed against HSBC Bank USA, National Association.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPretextDisparate TreatmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawReduction in ForcePerformance Review
References
0
Case No. No. 95 Civ. 5338 (JGK)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1995

Petition of Home Ins. Co.

The Home Insurance Company (Home) filed a petition to compel arbitration against Svedala Industries Inc. (Svedala) under the Federal Arbitration Act concerning disputed retrospective premiums. Svedala cross-moved to dismiss, arguing the dispute arose under an insurance policy without an arbitration clause and that Home had previously invoked federal jurisdiction in a Wisconsin action. The court clarified that only the Southern District of New York could compel arbitration, as specified in the agreement. The court granted Home's petition, concluding that the broad arbitration clause in the Retrospective Premium Agreement covered the dispute, and denied Svedala's cross-motion, thereby ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActRetrospective Premium AgreementWorkers Compensation PolicyMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsFirst-Filed RuleContract InterpretationScope of Arbitration ClauseBad Faith Claim
References
15
Case No. ADJ6703389
Regular
Aug 19, 2014

JEFFERY BURKE vs. HOME DEPOT, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Applicant Jeffery Burke's Petition for Reconsideration. Burke sought to overturn a prior award, claiming a violation of due process because he and his attorney did not receive the formal rating instructions and rating. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found that service of these documents on Burke's attorney at the correct address was presumed to have been completed. Therefore, no due process violation occurred, and reconsideration was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardHome DepotLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyADJ6703389Bakersfield District OfficeAdministrative Law JudgeFindings Orders and AwardAgreed Medical EvaluatorsDr. Bruce Fishman
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond v. Reilly Homes Construction Corp.

Plaintiffs Dale A. Diamond and James Panek sustained injuries at a construction site in East Fishkill while assembling a modular home. The accident occurred when a suspended roof section, being hoisted to allow for 'knee wall' installation, fell on them due to bracket failure. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants Reilly Homes Construction Corporation, Chelsea Homes, Inc., and Royal Crane, Inc. The Supreme Court initially denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Reilly Homes and Chelsea Homes, while also granting summary judgment to Royal Crane. The appellate court modified the orders, reversing the denials against Reilly Homes and Chelsea Homes and granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, but affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Royal Crane.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site AccidentFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHoist ApparatusElevation DifferentialWorker SafetyContractor LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2001

Vanderwerff v. Home

This case concerns an appeal by a plaintiff and defendant Otis Elevator, Inc., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The order granted summary judgment to Victoria Home, dismissing the plaintiff's personal injury complaint against it, and also granted judgment dismissing Otis Elevator's cross claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, holding that the plaintiff, having received Workers’ Compensation benefits from her general employer, was a special employee of Victoria Home. Consequently, the plaintiff's action against Victoria Home was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court found that Victoria Home exclusively controlled the manner and details of the plaintiff's work while she was employed there, thus establishing a special employment relationship.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceTort LawNew York Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,745 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