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

National Union Fire Insurance v. Great American E&S Insurance

Plaintiff Ethical Culture Fieldston School (ECF) and Tishman, the project manager, were named additional insureds on Solar's general liability policy with Great American. Solar employee, Lisa Best, was injured on site. While Solar filed workers' compensation, notice to Great American about Best's personal injury lawsuit against Tishman and ECF, and Solar's subsequent impleading, was delayed. Tishman and ECF sought a declaratory judgment that Great American was obligated to defend and indemnify them, and Solar cross-claimed. Great American moved for summary judgment, asserting untimely notice. The court found Solar's delay of over a year in notifying Great American was untimely and that Solar's belief of nonliability was unreasonable, especially given its contractual indemnification obligations. Consequently, Great American was not obligated to provide coverage to Solar in the underlying action.

Insurance Coverage DisputeTimely Notice RequirementCondition PrecedentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured StatusConstruction Site Injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ9799720
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

HOWARD GARNER vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, legally uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to correct a transcription error, amending the findings to reflect an injury to the applicant's left "little" toe instead of the left "middle" toe. The applicant's petition for reconsideration was denied, as the Board found no evidence to support claims of injury to his hand, hip, or a deformed left little toe, and the medical examiner did examine the relevant body part. The decision affirmed the findings of no permanent disability or need for further treatment for the left little toe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactInmate LaborerPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerTranscription ErrorLeft Little ToePermanent Partial DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc.

The case, Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company, revolves around an insurer's disclaimer of coverage due to late notice. Plaintiff Great Canal, a property owner, faced an underlying personal injury lawsuit after a worker's accident and notified its insurer, Seneca, four months later, believing a general contractor's policy would cover the incident. The Supreme Court denied Seneca's motion for summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact regarding Great Canal's reasonable excuse for the delay. The appellate court affirmed this denial, with a concurring opinion by Catterson, J., strongly arguing for New York to reconsider its "no-prejudice" rule, which allows insurers to disclaim without proving actual harm from late notice. This opinion highlighted the perceived inequity of such forfeitures and suggested a shift towards a "prejudice" standard, while the dissent emphasized strict adherence to established state precedent.

Insurance LawNotice of ClaimTimely NoticeDisclaimer of CoveragePrejudice StandardNo-Prejudice ExceptionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentContract LawAppellate Review
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MBB Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

This is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order denying summary judgment for the appellant, MBB Realty Limited Partnership, and granting it for the appellee, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. The dispute centered on a commercial lease, which was amended to include percentage rent and later involved A&P's plan to further downsize, leading to a contested letter agreement regarding new percentage rent terms and property alterations. The Bankruptcy Court found the letter agreement void for lack of consideration, despite A&P's subsequent payments, a decision MBB appealed. The District Court affirmed, concluding that MBB's alleged consent to exterior changes or store downsizing did not constitute valid consideration, as these actions were either not explicitly agreed upon or already permissible under the existing lease terms, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. Consequently, arguments about ratification or the satisfaction of conditions precedent were deemed irrelevant for a void contract.

Contract LawConsiderationParol Evidence RuleSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealCommercial LeasePercentage RentLease AmendmentRatificationGood Faith and Fair Dealing
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Great Meadow Correctional Facility

The decision addresses a habeas corpus petition filed by Robert Reed against Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Reed had been convicted of two counts of first-degree rape in Niagara County, a conviction which was largely affirmed on appeal, though his sentences were modified to run concurrently. He raised four primary grounds for federal habeas relief: insufficiency of evidence, incredibility of witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper consolidation of indictments during his trial. The court, however, rejected each of Reed's arguments, finding that the evidence presented at trial was constitutionally sufficient, witness credibility was properly within the jury's discretion, no prosecutorial misconduct as defined by precedent occurred, and the joinder of indictments was appropriate. Citing relevant case law, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the joinder and that the jury was properly instructed. As a result, the petition for habeas corpus was dismissed, and a certificate of appealability was denied, as the court found no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Habeas CorpusRape ConvictionInsufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityProsecutorial MisconductJoinder of IndictmentsDue ProcessActual Prejudice StandardFederal Habeas ReliefState Court Conviction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gaston v. Great Neck Union Free School District

Luis Gaston, an employee of Bay Welding, Inc., was injured while working at a school owned by Great Neck Union Free School District. Gaston initiated a negligence action against the School District, which subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Bay Welding, Inc., seeking indemnification for allegedly failing to procure general liability insurance as per their contract. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to the School District, finding Bay Welding, Inc., had not provided proof of the required insurance. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the contract regarding insurance coverage was ambiguous and necessitated a trial to determine the parties' intent.

Personal InjuryNegligenceContract DisputeIndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageContract AmbiguityThird-Party Action
References
0
Case No. ADJ3341513 (VNO 0517589) ADJ4150961 (VNO 0517583)
Regular
Sep 08, 2009

Jeannie Lefevre vs. TRW, INC., CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., CNA CLAIMS PLUS-PORTLAND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jeannie Lefevre's petition for reconsideration, upholding a judge's decision that her admitted left great toe injury did not cause subsequent injuries to her ankles, heels, knees, hips, or back, nor a cumulative trauma injury. The Board found Dr. Kornblum's opinion, which cited Lefevre's extensive pre-existing foot issues, was more persuasive than Dr. Capen's. Defendant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as the issues raised were subsequently corrected by an Amended Findings and Award, from which they failed to seek further reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaApportionmentMedical EvidencePermanent DisabilityTemporary Disability IndemnityAmended Findings and AwardQualified Medical Evaluator
References
4
Case No. ADJ11602449
Regular
Apr 01, 2020

PAUL PENNINGTON vs. WALMART STORE, INC.

This case involves an applicant who sustained left knee and right great toe injuries while employed by Walmart. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision regarding permanent disability. The Board found that the WCJ improperly made his own apportionment determination instead of relying on the QME's opinion, which was deemed substantial medical evidence. Consequently, the Board amended the award to reflect 37% permanent partial disability, increasing the applicant's indemnity and adjusting the attorney's fee accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCausation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Great South Beach Construction

Robert L. Pryor, trustee of the bankruptcy estates of Great South Beach Construction, Inc. and Great South Beach Marine Construction, appealed a bankruptcy court order. The bankruptcy court had granted summary judgment, ruling that funds withheld by the City of Long Beach, as directed by the Department of Labor under New York Labor Law § 220-b(2), constituted a statutory trust for unpaid workers' wages. Consequently, these funds were deemed not part of the debtors' bankruptcy estate. The District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that the statutory language and legislative history of Labor Law § 220-b(2)(b) indeed create a trust fund for workers' exclusive benefit, which is explicitly excluded from a debtor's bankruptcy estate under federal bankruptcy law.

BankruptcyStatutory TrustPrevailing WageLabor LawWithheld FundsChapter 7Chapter 11Automatic StaySummary JudgmentAppeal
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02769 [195 AD3d 140]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2021

Robinson v. Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc.

This class action sought unpaid gratuities under Labor Law § 196-d. The central question was whether an employer has a right to contractual indemnification from a third party for claims brought under this statute. The court determined that contractual indemnification in this context is against public policy, citing similar rulings on other labor laws like the FLSA. The Supreme Court had dismissed the third-party complaint, and this appellate decision affirmed that dismissal, stating that allowing such indemnification would undermine employers' willingness to comply with their statutory obligations.

unpaid gratuitiesLabor Lawcontractual indemnificationpublic policyemployer liabilitywage violationsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)third-party claimsclass actionappellate review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,314 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