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

Trojcak v. Valiant Millwrighting & Warehousing, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the proper cancellation of an employer's workers' compensation policy. A claimant was injured in September 1995, leading to a dispute when the carrier claimed the policy was canceled in June 1995 due to nonpayment. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled the policy was improperly canceled, citing Banking Law § 576 and estoppel. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the cancellation adhered to Banking Law § 576's notice requirements. This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the statutory notice provisions were met and that the finance agency and carrier were not estopped from canceling the policy despite prior acceptance of late payments.

Workers' Compensation Policy CancellationBanking Law § 576Estoppel DoctrineNotice RequirementsLate PaymentsInsurance Coverage DisputePolicy DefaultAppellate ReviewStatutory CompliancePremium Finance Agreement
References
7
Case No. SAC 0360922, SAC 0360923
Regular
Aug 08, 2007

DONALD FOSTER vs. C. OVERAA & COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves two industrial injuries sustained by the applicant as a millwright. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to clarify temporary disability indemnity periods. The WCAB amended the award to reflect that temporary disability payments are capped at 104 weeks within a two-year period for each injury, and that these periods can overlap if disabilities are concurrent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDonald FosterC. Overaa & CompanyZurich American Insurance CompanyMillwrightIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryElbow InjuryShoulder InjuryTemporary Disability Indemnity
References
3
Case No. 06 CIV. 2282(RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2006

Seabury Const. v. Dist. Council Ny and Vicinity

Seabury Construction Corp. sought to stay arbitration initiated by the District Council of New York and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, under the Labor-Management Relations Act. Seabury argued it was not bound by the 2001 Independent Millwright Agreement's arbitration provisions because it never signed the document. The District Council countered that Seabury was bound by an Interim Compliance Agreement it signed and its subsequent conduct, including adherence to agreement terms like increased surety bonds, benefit fund contributions, and participation in audits. The court found that Seabury's actions demonstrated its implicit adoption of the 2001 Agreement, including its arbitration clause. Consequently, the court granted the District Council's motion to compel arbitration and denied Seabury's petition to stay.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor-Management Relations ActContract EnforcementImplied AgreementEmployer ObligationsUnion ContractsPattern BargainingFederal Labor PolicyInterim Agreement
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2005

Hare v. Champion International

The claimant, a former laborer and millwright, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision ruling he failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market, despite sustaining multiple work-related injuries, including head, neck, and back trauma. His employment ended in 1999 due to a mill sale, with prior findings attributing his unemployment to economic conditions. Following further hearings and medical examinations, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined he had a moderate, permanent partial disability not prohibiting employment, and lacked labor market attachment. The Board affirmed this determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's arguments for total disability and upholding the finding that he had not sought work since December 2000, thus failing to demonstrate the requisite attachment to the labor market.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewEconomic ConditionsUnemploymentDisability BenefitsJudicial AffirmationConflicting Medical Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1993

Tambasco v. Norton Co.

Plaintiff, a millwright employed by Hallamore Corporation, was injured during the dismantling of a mixer shed at a facility owned by Norton Company. Plaintiff sued Norton, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and indemnification to Norton from Hallamore. On cross appeals, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff, determining the accident was not an elevation-related risk covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also reversed the denial of Norton's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding Norton lacked sufficient supervision. Finally, the court affirmed the grant of common-law and contractual indemnification to Norton against Hallamore.

Forklift accidentElevation-related riskLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Common-law negligenceIndemnificationContractual indemnificationSummary judgmentEmployer liabilityOwner liability
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hare v. Champion International

Claimant suffered head, neck, and back injuries in 1991 while working as a millwright for Champion International. His workers' compensation case was closed in 1993, with a finding of no compensable lost time after November 1991. In 1997, claimant's pain worsened, and he sought authorization for Viagra for work-related sexual dysfunction, which Champion's carrier denied. In 1999, Champion sold its mill, and the new owner did not rehire the claimant. He then sought compensation for lost time, alleging the non-rehire was due to his disability from the 1991 accident. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found his unemployment was due to economic conditions and denied a causal link for sexual dysfunction. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant failed to prove his inability to obtain employment was due to his accident-related disabilities, and that the Board properly resolved conflicting medical evidence.

Workers' CompensationSexual DysfunctionLost WagesEconomic ConditionsRehireDisability ClaimMedical EvidenceCausationAppellate ReviewBurden of Proof
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfe v. KLR Mechanical, Inc.

Plaintiff Malcolm Wolfe, a millwright employed by DLX Inc., was injured when he slipped on a threaded rod while working at defendant Irving Tissue, Inc.'s paper mill. Wolfe and his wife filed an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) against Irving Tissue, Inc., Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. (general contractor), and KLR Mechanical, Inc. (subcontractor). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims against all defendants and the other claims against Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. and KLR Mechanical, Inc. However, the court reversed the summary judgment granted to Irving Tissue, Inc. concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding that Irving retained control of the stairway and failed to establish a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The case was remitted for further proceedings against Irving Tissue, Inc.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentRoutine MaintenanceIndustrial CodeAppellate DivisionSpecial EmployeeConstructive NoticeDangerous Condition
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashjian v. Orion Power Holdings, Inc.

The plaintiff, an apprentice millwright employed by Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. and Elliott Company (collectively Elliott), sustained injuries after stepping into an unguarded hatch on the barge *Gowanus Bay No. 3* while overhauling a turbine. The plaintiff commenced an action against the barge owners, the Orion entities (Orion Power Holdings, Inc. et al.), alleging common-law negligence. The Orion entities, in turn, filed a third-party claim for contractual indemnification against Elliott. The plaintiff also sought to amend the complaint to include claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court dismissed the common-law negligence claim, denied amendment for Labor Law § 200, granted amendment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and denied Elliott's motion to dismiss the indemnification claim. On appeal and cross-appeal, the higher court, guided by the precedent of *Lee v Astoria Generating Co., L.P.*, modified the order. It determined that the barge was a 'vessel' under federal maritime law, thus the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) applied, preempting Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims and prohibiting contractual indemnification against the employer. Consequently, the court granted Elliott's motion to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The court affirmed the dismissal of the common-law negligence claim and the denial of amendment for Labor Law § 200.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationFederal Maritime LawLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPreemptionVesselCommon-Law NegligenceAmendment of Complaint
References
11
Showing 1-8 of 8 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