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

In Re Keenan

This decision addresses a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case concerning Dr. Keenan and his spouse, referred to as the Debtors-in-Possession. The Debtors were set to receive $100,000 from an insurance claim for pre-petition ear injuries sustained by Dr. Keenan. An unsecured creditor, Norwest Financial New York, Inc., sought a court order to limit the Debtors' use of these proceeds, fearing they would be used for personal expenses instead of for the medical practice or creditors. The court declined to micromanage the estate by imposing such limitations, emphasizing that it is better for the parties to negotiate a resolution. It also cautioned the Debtors that their financial conduct could lead to creditors seeking conversion or dismissal of the case.

Chapter 11BankruptcyDebtor-in-PossessionInsurance ProceedsPersonal Injury ClaimPost-petition IncomeCreditor RightsEstate AdministrationJudicial RestraintNegotiation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keenan v. Jones

Paul D. Keenan and Nora Keenan filed a complaint against Melvin Jones and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., alleging negligence caused Keenan's workplace injuries. Defendants then filed a third-party complaint seeking indemnity or contribution from Silo, Inc., Keenan's employer. During the proceedings, the New York Legislature enacted the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996, which largely eliminated employer liability for contribution or indemnity. Silo, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment, arguing the Omnibus Act should apply retroactively to bar the claim. The court denied Silo's motion, concluding that New York courts consistently hold the Omnibus Act applies prospectively only and does not affect pending cases.

Workers' Compensation Reform ActOmnibus ActRetroactive ApplicationProspective ApplicationSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party ClaimIndemnityContributionEmployer LiabilityNew York Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ14895207; ADJ162421; ADJ14895259; ADJ14894712
Regular
Feb 13, 2023

DENISE ARMTROUT vs. PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN ASSOCIATES

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denying her petition. The applicant, Denise Armtrout, sought authorization for lymphatic massage therapy for lymphedema. Independent medical review initially denied the treatment, citing a lack of evidence for its necessity and the applicant's ability to perform self-treatment. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied reconsideration, upholding the prior decision to deny the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionIndependent Medical Review (IMR)Lymphatic MassageLymphedemaChild Nutrition SpecialistAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Utilization Review (UR)Plainly Erroneous Finding of Fact
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1994

Twyford v. Production Associates, Inc.

Production Associates, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which granted McDonald’s Corporation’s motion to dismiss a third-party complaint. The primary action involved Thomas E. Twyford, a McDonald's employee, who sued Production Associates for injuries suffered at a convention. Production Associates then sought contribution from McDonald's. The Supreme Court initially applied Pennsylvania law, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that Illinois law should apply based on an 'interests analysis' approach, as both Production Associates and McDonald's have significant ties to Illinois. Illinois workers' compensation law, unlike Pennsylvania's or New Jersey's, does not preclude third-party contribution claims against an employer.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsContribution ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois LawPennsylvania Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ3517491 (SBR 0339570)
Regular
Apr 30, 2010

MARIA OROZCO vs. RIALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN ASSOCIATES RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Maria Orozco's Petition for Reconsideration against Rialto Unified School District and Keenan Associates. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation. The order of dismissal was filed on April 30, 2010. No specific details of the underlying dispute are provided in this order.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationRialto Unified School DistrictKeenan Associates RiversideADJ3517491SBR 0339570San Bernardino District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1993

Abreu v. Manhattan Plaza Associates

Antonio Abreu sustained personal injuries when a heavy electrical transformer fell on his hand while he was removing a shipping pallet. He and his wife initiated an action against Manhattan Plaza Associates, the building owner, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Although the jury found Manhattan Plaza not negligent, it found violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), leading to a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs based on absolute liability. Manhattan Plaza Associates appealed, arguing that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the object fell from a "miniscule height," and plaintiffs failed to allege a specific "concrete" Industrial Code provision for Labor Law § 241 (6). The appellate court concurred, modifying the judgment to dismiss the complaint against Manhattan Plaza Associates.

Personal InjuryLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityElevated WorksiteIndustrial CodeConstruction WorkAppellate DecisionJury VerdictDamagesNegligence
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soundview Associates v. Town of Riverhead

Sound-view Associates filed a lawsuit against the Town of Riverhead and other defendants, alleging violations of its First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The plaintiff claimed arbitrary denial of a special permit to construct a health spa, despite a pre-existing 1982 permit, and that defendants unlawfully coerced them into withdrawing a state court appeal by threatening to withhold approval for a separate clubhouse application from their tenant. The court partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing claims brought under the Fifth Amendment and those against the Town Board and Planning Department as duplicative. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the substantive due process, procedural due process, and First Amendment retaliation claims, finding that Sound-view Associates had sufficiently alleged a valid property interest, arbitrary infringement, and a chilled exercise of First Amendment rights. The motion to dismiss individual defendants Richard Ehlers and Dawn C. Thomas was also denied due to their alleged personal involvement in the unconstitutional actions.

Zoning disputeLand useSpecial permitHealth spaFirst AmendmentDue Process42 U.S.C. § 1983RetaliationCoercionProperty rights
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 1994

Lemma v. Forest City Pierrepont Associates

Plaintiff Michael Lemma instituted an action, joined by his wife for loss of consortium, to recover damages for Labor Law violations after he sustained injuries on May 19, 1987, when struck by a falling piece of steel at a construction site. Third-party defendants A.C. Associates, plaintiff's employer, and Steel Structures Corporation, performing structural steel work, were impleaded by the property owners and general contractor. A jury initially apportioned liability 80% to A.C. Associates and 20% to Steel Structures Corporation. The Supreme Court modified the judgment, finding the apportionment against the weight of the evidence and directing a new trial on liability unless the third-party defendants consent to a 50% each apportionment, based on Steel Structures Corporation's responsibilities for safety decking and its employee's negligence. The court also affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectApportionment of LiabilityThird-Party ActionJury Verdict ReviewAppellate DivisionNegligenceWorkplace SafetyNew Trial Conditional
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Rosbrock Associates Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Eduardo Londono Diaz, an employee of New Rochelle Hotel Association (NRHA), sustained injuries while working at the Ramada Plaza Hotel. He commenced an action against Rosbrock Associated Limited Partnership (Rosbrock), the landowner, alleging violations of the Labor Law. Rosbrock, which leased the land to NRHA, moved for summary judgment, arguing that NRHA and Rosbrock were effectively the same entity for Workers' Compensation Law purposes due to identical general and limited partners, thus precluding a lawsuit against the landowner under exclusive remedy provisions. The court granted Rosbrock's motion for summary judgment, finding that despite being separately maintained for tax and legal compliance, the identical partnership makeup rendered them a single entity for workers' compensation, thereby dismissing Diaz's action.

Limited Partnership LiabilityExclusive Remedy DoctrineIdentity of EntitiesLandowner Employer StatusSummary Judgment GrantLabor Law ViolationsPartnership LawStatutory DutyWorkplace Injury ClaimBoiler Maintenance
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,206 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