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

Catania v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

This case involves a submitted controversy under sections 546 to 548 of the Civil Practice Act, concerning whether a liability policy issued to John Schiro extends coverage to the plaintiff for injuries sustained by Schiro's wife. Schiro's wife alleged negligence against her spouse in the operation of his vehicle during his employment with the plaintiff. The court analyzed Insurance Law section 167 (subd. 3), which states that policies do not cover liability for spousal injuries unless expressly provided. Citing Morgan v. Greater New York Taxpayers Mut. Ins. Assn., the court treated the policy as if issued to the plaintiff alone, determining that Schiro's wife is not the plaintiff's spouse, thus making section 167 (subd. 3) inapplicable. The decision, supported by Manhattan Cas. Co. v. Cholakis, concluded that the insurer is liable. Therefore, judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to defend the pending negligence action and pay any judgment up to the policy limits.

Liability PolicyInsurance CoverageSpousal LiabilityCivil Practice ActInsurance LawNegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentAutomobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityInterspousal Immunity
References
2
Case No. 2016-189 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2018

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. Hartford Ins. Co.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The court found that defendant had established that there was no coverage for no-fault benefits since defendant had demonstrated that the Workers' Compensation Board had awarded workers' compensation benefits to plaintiff's assignor for injuries she had sustained in the accident which gave rise to the claims at issue. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, a lack of coverage defense may be raised without regard to any issue as to the propriety or timeliness of an insurer's denial of claim form. The papers submitted by defendant in support of its motion, and by plaintiff in support of its cross motion, established that plaintiff had submitted claims for workers' compensation benefits and that the Workers' Compensation Board had awarded plaintiff's assignor workers' compensation benefits for injuries she had sustained in the accident at issue. As plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, the order is affirmed.

No-fault benefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BoardLack of coverage defenseAssignee claimsAppellate ReviewFirst-party benefitsInsurance claimsTriable issue of factCivil Court
References
2
Case No. ADJ2609190 (VNO 0516982)
Regular
Oct 24, 2019

DEBORAH ORTIZ vs. KAISER PERMANENTE HOSPITAL/ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's Amended Findings of Fact and Order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found that the lien claimant's arguments regarding the "Kiefer presumption" and the effect of the settlement were statutorily incorrect and unsupported by law. Furthermore, the Board noted a due process issue as the parties were not properly notified that the matter was being re-submitted for decision. The WCJ is instructed to issue a Notice of Intention to re-submit, allowing parties to respond, and conduct further appropriate proceedings.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderInjury AOE/COEKiefer presumptionLabor Code 3202.5Labor Code 5705Tito TorresBurden of proofPrima facie case
References
2
Case No. ADJ7390533
Regular
Dec 10, 2018

HADA RAMOS vs. PREMIER BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY C/O BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address discrepancies regarding submitted invoices for lien claimant Med-Legal Photocopy. Previously, a decision disallowed certain invoices due to perceived missing documentation, but the lien claimant asserted these were submitted. The Board found good cause to rescind its prior order and the WCJ's award due to potential technical filing issues with EAMS. The case is returned to the WCJ to develop the record concerning the disputed invoices and issue a new decision.

Med-Legal PhotocopyPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeFindings and AwardLien ClaimantInvoicesBurden of ProofRecord DevelopmentElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. ADJ1433990 (VNO 0548911)
Regular
Aug 01, 2016

MISAEL MENDOZA HERNANDEZ vs. COLOSSEUM ATHLETICS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Misael Mendoza Hernandez seeking reconsideration of a decision filed on May 17, 2016. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration to allow further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is deemed necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision. Until a Decision After Reconsideration is issued, all filings related to the petition must be submitted directly to the Appeals Board Commissioners and not to district offices or through EAMS.

MISAEL MENDOZA HERNANDEZCOLOSSEUM ATHLETICSINC.STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDOPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATIONWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADJ1433990VNO 0548911statutory time constraintsfactual issues
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbitration Between Halcot Navigation Limited Partnership and Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group

Halcot Navigation Limited Partnership (Halcot) sought to vacate a partial arbitration award from August 4, 2006, which allowed Anthony Radcliffe Steamship Company Limited (a non-signatory) to assert claims against Halcot in arbitration. Halcot argued that the arbitrability of the claim should be decided by the court, not the arbitrators. Respondents (Anthony Radcliffe and Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group B.V.) cross-moved to confirm the award, contending Halcot waived its right to object by submitting the issue to arbitration. The court found that Halcot waived its right to independent review by actively participating and briefing the arbitrability issue before the arbitration panel. Even if there was no waiver, the court independently concluded that Anthony Radcliffe could compel arbitration based on equitable estoppel, as the issues were intertwined with the Time Charter agreement between Halcot and Stolt-Nielsen. Therefore, the court DENIED Halcot’s petition to vacate and GRANTED respondents’ motion to confirm the Arbitration Award.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardNew York ConventionFederal Arbitration ActArbitrabilityWaiver of RightsEquitable EstoppelNon-Signatory ArbitrationTime Charter Agreement
References
22
Case No. ADJ3129231
Regular
Nov 09, 2009

NOAH BERNAL vs. JOHN TRACY CLINIC, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded prior findings, and returned the matter for a new decision, addressing issues of the WCJ's rejection of medical evidence, imposition of sanctions, and failure to decide submitted issues.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjurySpineLeft HipLeft LegSanctionsWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Substantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. ADJ7219667
Regular
Feb 13, 2015

MARK JOHNSON vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant Mark Johnson's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB requires further study of the factual and legal issues to issue a just decision. All future filings must be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners' office, not district offices or e-filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemLevy Ford WallachLos Angeles City Attorney
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,294 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