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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00369
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2018

Matter of Bain v. New Caps, LLC

Claimant David Bain suffered a work-related neck and back injury. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which established claimant's average weekly wage using the 200 multiplier set forth in Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3). The Board found that the claimant had worked for the employer for only 16 days in the preceding 52-week period and that there was an absence of proof that the claimant was not fully available for employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the use of the 200 multiplier was supported by substantial evidence given the lack of evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited his availability for work.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationWorkers' Compensation Law § 14200 Multiplier MethodPart-time EmploymentClaimant AvailabilityWork-Related InjuryAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial EvidenceStatutory InterpretationEarnings Calculation
References
9
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01444 [225 AD3d 1189]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2024

Jesmain v. Time Cap Dev. Corp.

Plaintiff Connor B. Jesmain was injured at a construction site on property owned by 980 James Street, LLC, while moving a stack of drywall panels that fell on his ankle. He commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Time Cap Development Corp. and 980 James Street, LLC (980 James defendants), and Interior Builders Framing and Drywall LLC. The 980 James defendants also sought contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Syracuse Energy Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action due to issues of fact regarding safe storage and a dangerous material pile. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against 980 James, denied contractual indemnification for 980 James defendants against Syracuse Energy, and granted summary judgment dismissing 980 James defendants' cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Interior Builders. The decision affirmed the denial of Interior Builders' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and other cross-claims.

Construction Site InjuryDrywall AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cap Makers' Union, Local 2H Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union ex rel. Alvarez v. Feinstein

The case involves an action brought by Cap Makers Union, Local 2H, against former officers Michael Feinstein and Luz Rivera, seeking to prevent them from using a similar name for a rival union. Initially filed in New York State court based on state business law and common law, the defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting a federal question under Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. The federal district court, presided over by Judge Sweet, sua sponte remanded the action back to state court. The court found that federal jurisdiction was lacking because the plaintiff's complaint did not establish a federal cause of action, and federal preemption, raised as a defense, is insufficient for removal. The court also denied Local 2H's request for costs and Rule 11 sanctions against the defendants for improper removal.

Federal jurisdictionRemoval actionRemandState law claimsFederal questionNational Labor Relations ActPreemption defenseTrade name disputeUnion disputeCosts and sanctions
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peace v. Easy Trucking Co.

This case addresses the calculation of permanent partial disability awards for employees over age 60 under Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Act. The Supreme Court of Tennessee was asked to determine if such awards should be calculated as a percentage of 400 weeks, with a cap at 260 weeks, or as a percentage of 260 weeks. The Court held that awards are properly calculated at 400 weeks, capped at 260 weeks, for employees over 60. Additionally, the Court considered the application of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-242, which allows awards exceeding the statutory 'multiplier' provision of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(b) if supported by clear and convincing evidence. The case was remanded to the trial court for specific documentation of the clear and convincing evidence supporting an award in excess of the multiplier provision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityDisability Benefits CalculationAge 60+ EmployeesStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawVocational DisabilityMedical Impairment RatingMultiplier Provision ExceptionRemand for Findings
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Milan Seating Systems

Frances Barnett, an employee of Milan Seating Systems, suffered bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, leading to two workers' compensation lawsuits. The first settled a left-hand injury, while the second sought compensation for a right-hand carpal tunnel and a cubital tunnel injury. A key issue on appeal was whether Barnett was still employed by her "pre-injury employer" after Milan Seating was sold to Kongsberg Automotive, which impacted the application of a 1.5 multiplier to her benefits. The court reversed the chancery court's decision, ruling that a company sale means an employee is no longer with the pre-injury employer, thus lifting the 1.5 multiplier cap for the cubital tunnel injury. However, the appellate court affirmed the chancery court's finding that the right carpal tunnel injury was not new, and further compensation was barred by res judicata. The case was remanded for vocational disability determination regarding the cubital tunnel injury without the multiplier limitation.

Workers' CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCubital Tunnel SyndromePre-Injury EmployerStatutory InterpretationRes JudicataPermanent Partial ImpairmentVocational DisabilityCompany SaleMultiplier Cap
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2002

Hill v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.

The case involves Hershel Hill, an employee of Wilson Sporting Goods, who sought reconsideration of a previous permanent partial disability award for a work-related back injury. The trial court disallowed reconsideration on two grounds: the initial award was below the two and a half times multiplier cap, and Hill's employment was not terminated. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel found that neither a cap on the initial award nor termination of employment is a prerequisite for reconsideration under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2). The panel concluded that reconsideration is available if the initial award did not exceed the two and a half times medical impairment rating cap, provided the application is timely and based on an unsuccessful return to work due to injuries. The court also clarified that while retirement doesn't absolutely preclude reconsideration, it must be evaluated based on individual circumstances, such as inability to perform work due to injury. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for further consideration.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReconsideration of AwardMedical Impairment RatingStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewRemandBack InjuryRetirementEmployer Accommodation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sciame v. Airborne Express, Inc.

This case addresses the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a) concerning the maximum weekly benefits a claimant can receive for concurrent schedule and nonschedule awards. The court reaffirms its established precedent that these concurrent payments cannot exceed the statutory cap of $400 per week for 2004 injuries, irrespective of whether the nonschedule award stems from a permanent disability. This principle was also extended to include periodic payments for a schedule loss of use award and nonschedule award payments for temporary disability. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 and 25 did not indicate legislative intent to overturn this longstanding cap. Consequently, the Board's decision, which held that the claimant's receipt of maximum weekly benefits from a nonschedule award precluded additional benefits from a schedule loss of use award, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit MaximumsConcurrent AwardsSchedule Loss of Use AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory CapJudicial Precedent AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Law Interpretation2009 Amendments AnalysisPermanent Disability Benefits
References
11
Case No. ADJ2630857 (SBR 0297019) ADJ3812701 (SBR 0297018)
Regular
Mar 09, 2012

Jack S. Vogel, Jr. vs. Remedy Intelligent Staffing, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, White Cap Industries, Inc., AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, finding White Cap Industries to be the applicant's special employer. The Board determined that White Cap's insurance policy with American Casualty Company covered special employees and constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1. Consequently, CIGA is relieved of liability for the applicant's workers' compensation benefits. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

CIGASpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentOther InsuranceJoint and Several LiabilityInsurance Code Section 1063.1Employers' Liability CoverageWorkers' Compensation CoverageLachesPrejudice
References
21
Case No. No. 08-11-00276-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2012

Williams-Pyro, Inc. v. Rhonda Barbour

Rhonda Barbour sued her former employer, Williams-Pyro, Inc. (WPI), for age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). A jury found in Barbour's favor, awarding $250,000 in damages, which the trial court reduced to $120,714.40 due to statutory caps, also awarding $154,335 in attorney's fees. WPI appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding age as a motivating factor in Barbour's termination and asserting the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to Barbour's alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Barbour cross-appealed, contending the trial court erred by not applying a multiplier to her attorney's fee award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety, concluding that sufficient direct evidence supported the age discrimination finding, Barbour had exhausted administrative remedies, and the trial court correctly ruled it lacked authority to apply a multiplier under Texas Labor Code Section 21.259.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawTexas Commission on Human Rights ActWrongful TerminationAttorney's FeesLodestar MethodMultipliersSubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesSufficiency of Evidence
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 262 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