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. AHM 0114480
Regular
Jun 06, 2008

JAVIER QUINTERO vs. IRON MOUNTAIN, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

In Quintero v. Iron Mountain, Inc., the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This action was taken due to statutory time constraints and an initial review of the record, necessitating further study of the factual and legal issues. The Board requires this additional review to ensure a complete understanding of the case and issue a just decision.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationGRANTINGOPINION AND ORDERJAVIER QUINTEROIRON MOUNTAINZURICH NORTH AMERICAAHM 0114480STATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSFURTHER PROCEEDINGS
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Old Country Iron Works, Inc. v. Iron Workers Locals 40, 361 & 417 of the International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers Union Security Funds

This labor-management dispute began with Old Country Iron Works, Inc. seeking to stay arbitration initiated by Local 361, claiming its collective bargaining agreement was solely with Local 40. After the case was removed to federal court, Old Country moved for remand, while the unions cross-moved for summary judgment to compel arbitration. The District Court denied Old Country's remand motion, asserting federal jurisdiction due to the dispute's reliance on interpreting the collective bargaining agreement under the Taft-Hartley Act. However, the court also denied the unions' summary judgment motions without prejudice, citing uncertainties regarding the need for an arbitration order and the scope of the arbitration agreement concerning potential jurisdictional issues. The parties were subsequently directed to engage in settlement discussions.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationRemoval JurisdictionTaft-Hartley ActSection 301Summary JudgmentMotion to RemandFederal Common LawJurisdictional Dispute
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramales v. Pecker Iron Workers of Westchester, Inc.

Pecker Iron Workers of Westchester, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Christ Fellowship Baptist Church and Myler Church Building Systems, Inc., on their cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The appeal concerned an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The appellate court reviewed the contractual indemnification provision, finding that the church defendants established their prima facie burden. Pecker Iron Workers failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the accident was caused by the negligence of its subcontractor, River Steel Corp. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment for contractual indemnification was affirmed.

contractual indemnificationsummary judgmentpersonal injurynegligenceappealindemnification provisionsubcontractor liabilitythird-party claimtort lawNew York law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2002

Wilson v. Chicago Bridge & Iron

A former construction worker, the claimant, filed for workers' compensation benefits in January 2001, alleging asbestosis from his employment with Chicago Bridge & Iron. National Union Fire Insurance Company was identified as the carrier. After medical evidence supported the occupational disease claim, and despite the carrier failing to obtain an independent medical examination, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing improper notice to their third-party administrator, Crawford & Company. The court rejected this contention, affirming the Board's decision, citing the carrier's direct involvement and representation by counsel throughout the proceedings.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationshipIndependent Medical ExaminationDue ProcessThird-Party AdministratorCarrier LiabilityEmployer AppealBoard Affirmance
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pecker Iron Works of New York, Inc. v. Traveler's Insurance

This case involves a dispute between Pecker Iron Works and Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut concerning the primary versus excess coverage obligations of two liability insurance carriers. Pecker, designated as an 'additional insured' under Upfront Enterprises' policy with Travelers, sought primary coverage after an Upfront worker was injured on a construction site. Travelers contended its policy provided only excess coverage for additional insureds unless explicitly designated as primary in a written contract. The Supreme Court initially agreed with Travelers, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that coverage for additional insureds is presumed primary unless unambiguously stated otherwise. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Pecker was entitled to primary coverage.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSubcontractor AgreementDeclaratory JudgmentContract InterpretationLiability InsuranceConstruction ProjectAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00995 [191 AD3d 526]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Gjeka v. Iron Horse Transp., Inc.

Martin Gjeka was injured in a traffic accident at a construction site, falling into an unguarded trench after being struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Michael Busch. The lawsuit involved Martin Gjeka and Drite Gjeka as plaintiffs, and Iron Horse Transport, Inc., Michael Busch, 108-11 East 116th Street LLC, and Re-Steel Supply Company, Inc. as defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court judgment, vacating awards for past pain and suffering, past loss of consortium, and future medical expenses. A new trial was ordered for the vacated awards unless the plaintiffs stipulated to a reduction of damages, and the court otherwise affirmed the judgment. The court upheld the jury's apportionment of 95% fault to 108-11 East 116th Street LLC and 5% to Michael Busch, as well as the awards for past and future lost earnings.

Personal InjuryVehicular AccidentConstruction Site AccidentVicarious LiabilityLabor LawWorkers' CompensationDamagesPain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumMedical Expenses
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Liability Ins. v. Mountain Valley Indemnity Co.

This diversity action involves an insurance dispute between plaintiffs United States Liability Insurance Co. (U.S. Liability) and Mobile Air Transport, Inc., and defendant Mountain Valley Indemnity Co. The conflict arose from a fatal truck accident involving a Mobile Air employee driving a truck leased from Leroy Holding Company, Inc. After an underlying personal injury action settled, U.S. Liability and Mountain Valley each paid $225,000 towards the remaining $450,000 portion of the settlement. The core disagreement is whether the Truck Lease Agreement, which designates Mobile Air's insurance as primary, or the specific 'other insurance' clauses within U.S. Liability's and Mountain Valley's respective policies, which would make Mountain Valley's coverage primary, should govern. Applying New York law, the court ruled that the insurance policy provisions take precedence over the lease agreement. Consequently, U.S. Liability's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Mountain Valley's cross-motion was denied, holding Mountain Valley liable for the entire $450,000 in dispute.

Insurance DisputePrimary vs Excess CoverageTruck Lease AgreementInsurance Policy InterpretationSummary JudgmentNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionIndemnificationSubrogationAutomobile Accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iron Workers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Health Fund v. Dinnigan

The case involves a dispute between the Iron Workers Locals 40, 361, & 417 Health Fund and Robert Dinnigan, Amanda C. Dinnigan Supplemental Needs Irrevocable Trust, and their attorney regarding reimbursement of medical expenses. The Health Fund sought nearly $1.7 million paid for Amanda Dinnigan's severe injuries from a third-party tortfeasor settlement. Defendants argued against reimbursement, citing state anti-subrogation laws and the "made-whole" doctrine. The court ruled that the Health Fund was self-insured, thus preempting state law, and that the 2008 SPD, which rejected the made-whole doctrine, applied to most expenses. Ultimately, the court ordered judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,292,278, having reduced the claim by 25% to account for the Defendants' attorneys' fees and expenses in securing the original settlement.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsHealth Fund ReimbursementSubrogationEquitable ReliefSelf-Insured PlanMade-Whole DoctrinePersonal Injury SettlementSupplemental Needs TrustAttorneys' Fees
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubeis v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Aldo Rubeis was injured after falling from a ladder while installing a steel cupola, sustaining a brain injury. He sued Aqua Club, Inc., who then impleaded Rubeis's employer, Venezia Iron Works, Inc., alleging a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court denied Venezia Iron Works' motion to dismiss, and a jury found Rubeis sustained a grave injury. Venezia Iron Works appealed. The Appellate Division reviewed the definition of "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically "permanent total disability" in the context of brain injury cases. The Court concluded that Rubeis's injuries, despite their severity, did not meet the "narrowly defined" standard for grave injury based on prior precedents, which focus on day-to-day functions rather than just employability. Therefore, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, granted Venezia Iron Works' motion, and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Permanent Total Disability DefinitionBrain Injury SeverityCommon Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimThird-Party Action DismissalAppellate Review StandardsStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability Exemption
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 159 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