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

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. ADJ595869 (SAC 0369775)
Regular
Mar 07, 2012

DARRIN WATTS vs. LIFE ASSIST INC., REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for removal, reversing a prior order regarding a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board determined that reports from Dr. Tahami dated after March 16, 2011, were untimely under Rule 38(a) and therefore should not be sent to a newly appointed QME. The decision amended the prior order to include only Dr. Tahami's reports issued before March 16, 2011, and his deposition transcript for the new QME's review. This ruling emphasizes strict adherence to timeframes for medical-legal evaluations.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME PanelUntimely ReportAdministrative Director Rule 38(a)Comprehensive Medical-Legal EvaluationLabor Code Section 4062.5Industrial InjuryPsyche InjuryReexamination
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2003

Claim of Isaacs v. Fleet Financial Services

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from May 16, 2003, which deemed her application for review untimely. The claimant's initial workers' compensation claim for a compensable back injury was established in 1999, with an average weekly wage set at $258. After the case was reopened in 2000 for further medical treatment and then closed in 2001, claimant sought an explanation for her average weekly wage calculation in March 2003, over three years after the initial decision became final. Her subsequent formal application for Board review of the 1999 administrative decision was denied as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the initial decision, as required by 12 NYCRR 313.3 [c] and Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. The court affirmed the Board’s discretionary decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the significant delay and lack of evidence demonstrating erroneous wage computation.

Workers' CompensationAppealTimeliness of ApplicationAdministrative ReviewAverage Weekly WageBoard DiscretionNew York Labor LawJudicial ReviewProcedural IssuesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 16-CV-3812, 16-CV-5302
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Lighton Indus., Inc. v. Allied World Nat'l Assurance Co.

This case involves consolidated actions by Lighton Industries, Inc. and Hibuild Limited Liability Company against Allied World National Assurance Company and Mt. Hawley Insurance Company. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment regarding the insurers' duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying personal injury action, the Tunkara Action, stemming from an August 16, 2014 accident at Brooklyn College. The court granted Lighton and Hibuild's motions for summary judgment, determining that Allied and Mt. Hawley owe a duty to defend the plaintiffs in the Tunkara Action. This decision was based on ambiguities in the insurance policies' Classification Limitation and Designated Ongoing Operations Exclusion, which were construed against the insurers. However, all motions for summary judgment concerning indemnification were denied, and these claims were dismissed without prejudice as premature, as liability in the underlying Tunkara Action had not yet been determined.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationAmbiguityPolicy ExclusionClassification LimitationOngoing Operations ExclusionSubcontractor Liability
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollack v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Emil Pollack, a mason tender, fell from scaffolding while working on a Lowe's store construction site in Orangeburg, New York, on September 25, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sued Safway Steel Products, Inc., March Associates (general contractor), Orangeburg Holding, LLC (land owner), and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (developer), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, along with common law negligence and strict products liability. Both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg due to factual disputes. The court also denied March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg's cross-motion for summary judgment. Safway's motion for summary judgment was granted for the Labor Law § 200 claim but denied for §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. March's request for contractual and common law indemnification from CMC Concrete Masonry (a subcontractor and third-party defendant) was denied for summary judgment purposes due to unresolved issues of fault.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffolding accidentConstruction site injuryProximate causeContributory negligenceNon-delegable dutyGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityThird-party action
References
32
Case No. Misc. No. 254
Significant
Apr 20, 2012

vs. Daniel Escamilla

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied two petitions filed by Daniel Escamilla, the respondent in a disciplinary proceeding, ruling that his requests for documents were unnecessary and his objections to procedural orders were untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOffer of ProofSanction ProceedingsLabor Code Section 4907Notice of HearingRepresentative PrivilegeAdministrative Law JudgeDocumentary EvidenceCourt Administrator Rule 10270
References
4
Case No. Misc. No. 254
Regular
Apr 20, 2012

Daniel Escamilla vs. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Daniel Escamilla's petitions seeking production of eleven sanction case files and clarification of issues. The WCAB found Mr. Escamilla already possessed or had access to the relevant documents and had adequate notice of the issues concerning his alleged misconduct. His objections to providing an offer of proof were deemed untimely and without merit. Consequently, the Board affirmed the existing procedures and denied his requests.

WCABDaniel Escamillasanction proceedingsoffer of proofpetition for removalLabor Code Section 4907suspensionremoval of privilegerepresentativemoral character
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 1981

Claim of Bock v. Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer

The respondent Workers’ Compensation Board moved to dismiss appeals filed by the appellant on March 27, 1980, May 7, 1980, and August 18, 1980. The court granted the Board's motion to dismiss the March 27 and May 7 appeals as moot due to a subsequent board determination. The August 18, 1980 appeal was dismissed because the underlying board decision, which merely referred the case to an impartial medical specialist, was nonfinal and therefore not appealable. The claimant's motion dated January 29, 1981, was granted only to the extent that the original board file could be provided as an exhibit. Another motion by the claimant dated March 16, 1981, seeking vacatur of decisions, consolidation of appeals, and change of venue, was denied.

Appeal DismissalMootnessNonfinal DecisionWorkers' Compensation AppealsMotion PracticeJudicial ReviewCase ReferralMedical SpecialistBoard FileConsolidation of Appeals
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 1979

Wm. Chalson & Co. v. Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond & Watchcase Workers Union Local No. 1

The plaintiff, Wm. Chalson & Co., Inc., sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond & Watchcase Workers Union Local No. 1 to prevent arbitration. Chalson argued it was not bound by a collective bargaining agreement signed on March 21, 1979, as it had unilaterally withdrawn from the multi-employer bargaining unit on March 16, 1979, citing an alleged impasse in negotiations. The Union contended that Chalson's withdrawal was ineffective and sought to compel arbitration under the new agreement. The court determined that the issue of whether Chalson had a duty to arbitrate should be decided by the court, not an arbitrator. Although the court assumed Chalson's withdrawal was an unjustified unfair labor practice due to a lack of actual impasse, it concluded that Chalson's agency with the Association was terminated. Therefore, the Association lacked authority to bind Chalson to the new agreement. Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff, permanently enjoining arbitration between the parties under the March 21, 1979 contract, without prejudice to the NLRB's statutory jurisdiction.

Labor disputecollective bargainingarbitrationcontract terminationmulti-employer bargainingunfair labor practicedeclaratory judgmentinjunctive reliefagency lawNLRB jurisdiction
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,217 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