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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ1160933 (SAL 0073085) ADJ1668595 (SAL 0073084)
Regular
Feb 17, 2012

MARIA AYALA vs. MANN PACKING COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, On Behalf of INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY In Liquidation, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's reconsideration request, overturning a prior order that denied CIGA relief from administering further medical treatment. The Board found that Zenith's joint and several liability under a 1999 Stipulated Award constituted "other insurance," relieving CIGA, as Industrial Indemnity's insolvency insurer, of its obligation. The court clarified that the settlement between Zenith and Industrial Indemnity addressed only their contribution claims, not Zenith's liability to the applicant. Consequently, Zenith is now responsible for administering the award of future medical treatment.

CIGAIndustrial IndemnityZenith InsuranceStipulated AwardJoint and Several LiabilityOther InsuranceInsurance Code Section 1063.1Covered ClaimsInsolvency InsuranceCumulative Trauma
References
4
Case No. ADJ10678861
Regular
Aug 27, 2018

FERNANDO BEDOYA vs. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding temporary disability benefits. The Board found that the applicant, who had industrial injuries and was laid off due to plant closure, was entitled to temporary disability indemnity. The defendant failed to prove the applicant was terminated for cause (misconduct) or that suitable modified work was unavailable. Therefore, the applicant's diminished earning capacity was a direct result of his industrial injury and the employer's actions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & Awardtemporary disability indemnitytermination for causeodd lot doctrinequalified medical examiner (QME)maximum medical improvement (MMI)primary treating physician (PTP)work restrictions
References
15
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. ADJ1124123 (BGN 0064929) ADJ3374432 (BGN 0061307)
Regular
Oct 22, 2018

MARY BAKER vs. SWEEETHEART CUPS; CIGA by SEDGWICK CMS for FREMONT INSURANCE in liquidation and PORTEOUS FASTENERS/PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, CHUBB INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, reversing the finding that CIGA remained liable for permanent total disability indemnity and medical treatment for the applicant's industrial injuries. The Board found that because the applicant's injuries resulted in a joint and several award with a solvent insurer, Pacific Indemnity, CIGA has no obligation to pay as "other insurance" was available. The decision clarifies that CIGA is absolved of liability for medical treatment jointly caused by both injuries, but remains liable for treatment solely caused by the September 1979 injury. Pacific Indemnity is now solely responsible for all remaining permanent total disability indemnity and medical treatment costs, adjusting for payments already made by CIGA.

CIGASweetheart CupsPorteous FastenersFremont InsurancePacific IndemnityChubb InsuranceWilkinson doctrinejoint and several liabilitycovered claimsother insurance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lipshultz v. K & G Industries, Inc.

Car-Win Industries, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing cross claims by K & G Industries, Inc. The appellate court reversed the order, granted Car-Win's motion, and dismissed the cross claims asserted against Car-Win. The decision highlighted that the plaintiffs' injuries did not meet the definition of 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, thus invalidating common-law indemnification or contribution claims. Furthermore, contractual indemnification claims were dismissed because the agreement between Car-Win and Strescon Industries, Inc. did not explicitly name K & G, the general contractor, as an indemnified party. The court emphasized the strict construction of indemnity contracts, requiring clear intent for such obligations to be assumed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCross ClaimsIndemnificationContributionWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryContractual InterpretationStrict ConstructionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Lead Industries Ass'n

This appellate decision addresses an action brought by the City of New York, the New York City Housing Authority, and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation against lead paint manufacturers and their trade association. The plaintiffs seek indemnity and restitution for costs incurred in abating lead paint hazards in their buildings. The court reverses lower court orders that had dismissed these indemnity and restitution claims, clarifying that such causes of action are independent of underlying time-barred tort claims and accrue when loss is suffered by the party seeking indemnity. The opinion emphasizes that these equitable remedies aim to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure that the party primarily responsible for the hazard bears the financial burden. Additionally, the court addresses jurisdictional challenges against newly added defendants, ruling that further discovery is warranted.

Lead Paint LitigationIndemnity ClaimsRestitution ClaimsStatute of LimitationsProducts LiabilityFraud ClaimsUnjust EnrichmentPublic Health SafetyEnvironmental HazardsSuccessor Liability
References
22
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. 535366
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2023

Matter of Delaney v. John P. Picone, Inc.

Claimant Glen Delaney filed for workers' compensation benefits, alleging bilateral arm and hand injuries from an occupational disease, specifically neuropathy, osteoarthritis, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ decision finding John P. Picone, Inc. (Picone) and its carrier, Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, liable, with December 19, 2018, established as the date of disablement. Picone and Starr Indemnity appealed, arguing that Jett Industries Inc. should be the liable employer under Workers' Compensation Law § 44 and contesting the date of disablement. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the selection of December 19, 2018, as the date of disablement and that Picone and Starr Indemnity had waived their right to cross-examine physicians by failing to meet deadlines.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation Law § 44Date of DisablementEmployer LiabilityCarrier LiabilityCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCubital Tunnel SyndromeIndependent Medical ExaminationWaiver of RightsAppellate Division
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salomon v. Adderley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs Geordany J. Salomon, Donielle Lewis, Dwight Edghill, and Shanroy Powell sought to amend their complaint against Adderley Industries, Inc. to include American Communications Industries, Inc. and several individuals (Lawrence Presser, Joseph Misseri, Vincent Cestaro) as additional defendants. They also requested to add a new claim under New York Labor Law Section 195. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York reviewed the motion, applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). The court granted the motion to add the new corporate and individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the amendment after new information emerged during discovery and that the proposed claims of employer status were plausible under the FLSA and NYLL. However, the request to add the NYLL § 195 claim was denied because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient good cause for its late inclusion.

Amendment of PleadingsJoinder of PartiesEmployer LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ClaimsDiscoveryGood Cause StandardUndue DelayFutility of Amendment
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 4,821 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