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. ADJ6891307
Regular
Aug 26, 2013

IDA HANCOX vs. KAISER PERMANENTE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (ALJ) award finding industrial injury to applicant's right knee and ankle. The primary issue was whether the ALJ erred by awarding temporary disability that potentially exceeded the 104-week limit under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2). The Board found the issue of temporary disability was sufficiently raised and amended the decision to defer determination of temporary disability, the EDD lien, and related attorney fees for the ALJ to re-evaluate under the proper statutory limitation. The permanent disability award of 15% was otherwise affirmed.

IDA HANCOXKAISER PERMANENTEADJ6891307nursing assistantright kneeright anklepermanent disabilitytemporary total disabilityEmployment Development DepartmentEDD
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Harain Figueroa

The Family Court's order from May 11, 1984, which directed the immediate surrender of a three-year-old foster child, Ida Christina L., to the Commissioner of Social Services, was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found that the record was insufficiently developed to justify the child's immediate removal from foster parents, with whom she had lived almost since birth. While acknowledging some questionable responses from the foster parents and unconvincing explanations for their absence from a hearing, the court determined there was no adequate basis to conclude they would not comply with court directions. Furthermore, no other compelling reason for sudden removal was presented by the hearing minutes, which largely consisted of statements based on information and belief or disputed factual claims, necessitating further development. The appellate court refrained from prejudging the outcome of any ongoing or future hearings regarding the child's custodial arrangements.

Foster CareChild WelfareFamily LawChild RemovalAppellate ReviewDue ProcessSocial Services LawNew York CountyJudicial DiscretionHearing Procedures
References
0
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08623
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2014

Russo v. Hamill

The plaintiff, Ida Russo, allegedly sustained personal injuries after tripping over a metal pipe on a sidewalk adjacent to the defendants' property where construction was taking place. The defendants, James F. Hamill et al., cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing they neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to establish prima facie that they lacked constructive notice of the pipe, despite showing they did not create the condition or have actual notice.

Personal InjuryTrip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeHazardous ConditionProperty Owner DutyAppellate ReviewSidewalk AccidentConstruction Site Safety
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1994

Washington v. New York City Industrial Development Agency

An employee of Par Par Contracting was injured and sued the New York City Industrial Development Agency (IDA). IDA, insured by National Casualty, then filed a third-party action against Par Par for contribution and indemnification, relying on Par Par's State Insurance Fund coverage. The Supreme Court denied Par Par’s motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, dismissing the third-party action related to National Casualty’s insurance coverage. The dismissal was based on the antisubrogation rule, which prohibits an insurer from pursuing a subrogated action against its own insured for claims covered under the original policy, even if separate insurance policies for common law indemnity exist.

antisubrogation ruleinsurance disputethird-party liabilitysummary judgment motionWorkers' Compensationemployer liabilitycontractual indemnificationcommon law indemnificationappellate reversalNew York law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Sagamore Hotel

Plaintiff Brown sued Kennington Properties, Inc. and Green Island Associates (defendants) for injuries from a 1985 construction accident, moving for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants and third-party defendant Warren and Washington Industrial Development Agency (IDA) cross-moved for dismissal or indemnity against L.F. Driscoll Company. The court found that service on Green Island through Kennington, its general partner, was proper and timely. On the merits, the court reversed the lower court, granting Brown summary judgment on liability against Kennington and Green Island, as the defendants failed to contradict Brown's prima facie showing that a safety device (cleat) malfunctioned. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment for common-law indemnity to Kennington, Green Island, and the IDA against L.F. Driscoll Company, who was solely responsible for safety practices and the faulty cleat. L.F. Driscoll's cross-claim was dismissed.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsService of ProcessPartnership LawCommon-Law IndemnityThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2008

Magen v. Hartford Fire Insurance

This case addresses whether the prompt disclaimer requirement of the Insurance Law is triggered when one insurance carrier notifies another carrier on behalf of a mutual insured, requesting defense and indemnity. The court reiterates its holding in Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. v Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., confirming that such a tender triggers the insurer's obligation to issue a timely disclaimer under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). In this specific instance, J.T. Magen's insurer, Travelers, tendered notice to Hartford on behalf of J.T. Magen, IDA, and Magen David Yeshiva, who were additional insureds under a Hartford policy. Hartford's 51-day delay in disclaiming coverage was deemed untimely, precluding them from denying coverage. The Supreme Court's decision granting J.T. Magen summary judgment was affirmed.

Insurance LawDisclaimer of CoverageTimely NoticeAdditional InsuredDeclaratory JudgmentCondition PrecedentInter-insurer ClaimsConstruction Site InjurySubcontractor LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
20
Showing 1-6 of 6 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