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

Calpine Corp. v. Nevada Power Co. (In Re Calpine Corp.)

Calpine Corporation and its affiliates (Debtors) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They sought an extension of the automatic stay to prevent the ongoing "Nevada Litigation" against co-defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (Fireman's) from proceeding. This litigation stemmed from a dispute with Nevada Power Company regarding a Centennial Project bond, for which Fireman's was surety for Calpine's obligations. The Debtors argued that continuing the Nevada Litigation against Fireman's would adversely impact their reorganization efforts due to potential collateral estoppel, indemnification obligations, and distraction of key personnel. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and Fireman's moved to intervene, which was granted. The court found that Calpine demonstrated irreparable harm, and the balance of equities favored granting the stay, as Fireman's liability was contingent on Calpine's, and a judgment against Fireman's would effectively be a judgment against the Debtors, impairing their reorganization. The court granted the motion to stay the Nevada Litigation.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayCo-Debtor StaySection 362Section 105ReorganizationIrreparable HarmCollateral EstoppelIndemnificationSurety Bond
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stachura v. 615-51 Street Realty Corp.

The defendants third-party plaintiffs, 615-51 Street Realty Corp. and New Deal Realty Corp., appealed an order denying summary judgment to New Deal Realty Corp. on a contractual indemnification claim and granting dismissal of that claim to the third-party defendant, J&L Landscaping Inc. The appellate court dismissed the appeal of 615-51 Street Realty Corp. The court reversed the order pertaining to New Deal Realty Corp., finding that the 'hold harmless' agreement between New Deal and J&L was a valid and binding contract supported by consideration and not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. New Deal Realty Corp. successfully demonstrated its freedom from negligence, and J&L Landscaping Inc. failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded in favor of New Deal Realty Corp. on its contractual indemnification claim against J&L Landscaping Inc.

Construction AccidentContractual IndemnificationHold Harmless AgreementSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury DamagesNegligence
References
11
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 09403 [134 AD3d 987]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2015

Gikas v. 42-51 Hunter Street, LLC

Aristides Gikas, an electrician's helper, sustained personal injuries at a construction site when an unsecured steel I-beam fell and struck him. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding the plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to judgment due to the absence of safety devices. The court also affirmed the dismissal of a third third-party complaint against the plaintiff's employer, Danica Group, LLC, based on Workers' Compensation Law § 11. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying Colgate Scaffolding & Equipment Corp.'s motion for summary judgment on its cross claim for contractual indemnification against Roe Development Group, LLC, due to Colgate's failure to demonstrate it was not at fault or lacked supervisory authority over the dismantling work.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Third-Party ActionFalling Object InjuryEmployer LiabilityGeneral Contractor Responsibility
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2009

Claim of Galanos v. Nevada Utilities

In December 2006, the claimant sustained injuries during a physical altercation at work. Initially, her workers' compensation claim was established, and a weekly rate was set. However, the carrier later sought to suspend payments, asserting that the claimant had previously signed a C-105.51 form, opting out of workers' compensation coverage due to her status as an executive officer. The claimant disputed her officer status and argued that the carrier should be estopped from denying coverage after making payments. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled in favor of the employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant's opt-out election remained valid and that the doctrines of laches and estoppel were inapplicable.

Workers' Compensation CoverageExecutive Officer ExemptionOpt-out Form C-105.51Estoppel DoctrineLaches DoctrineCorporate Officer StatusEmployment Status DisputeWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSubstantial Evidence ReviewCoverage Disclaimer
References
3
Case No. ANA 0393374ANA 0393375
Regular
May 02, 2008

JOHN PAUL LUCAS vs. GREAT BASIN INSTITUTE, ASSOCIATED RISK MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case concerns an applicant injured in California who also received medical treatment and initial benefits in Nevada. The defendant sought to defer jurisdiction to Nevada, citing a Nevada statute and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, arguing the applicant's acceptance of Nevada benefits barred claims in California. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant did not "volitionally" accept Nevada benefits as he was unaware of signing a Nevada claim form and believed he was receiving benefits under California law. Therefore, California retained jurisdiction over the applicant's workers' compensation claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFull Faith and Credit ClauseCompensable Consequence InjuryJurisdictionNevada LawContract of HireIndustrial InjuryIndustrial AccidentReconsiderationWCJ Report
References
13
Case No. ADJ8213231
Regular
May 21, 2013

David Lade vs. COUNTY OF NEVADA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the County of Nevada Sheriff's Department's petition for reconsideration of a Findings and Award. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report, finding the petition lacked merit and noting the defendant's procedural missteps. Specifically, the defendant improperly referenced an unadmitted document and sought removal when reconsideration was the correct procedural avenue for a final order. The Board affirmed the applicant's entitlement to shift differential as part of his Labor Code 4850 benefits, aligning with case law that prevents employers from altering an employee's status to avoid such payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of Nevada Sheriff's DepartmentDavid LadeADJ8213231Petition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 1084(a)Labor Code section 4850shift differentialmodified dutylight duty
References
5
Case No. RDG 0120327
Regular
Nov 01, 2007

KELLY LANGLEY vs. COUNTY OF NEVADA, CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case involves a workers' compensation appeal where the applicant is Kelly Langley and the defendant is the County of Nevada. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ's decision of September 17, 2007, with an amendment. The amendment specifically allows applicant's Exhibits 1, 2, 8, and 9 to be admitted into evidence.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDKELLY LANGLEYCOUNTY OF NEVADACLAIMS MANAGEMENTINC.RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AMENDEDEVIDENCE ADMITTEDEXHIBITS 1 2 8 9
References
0
Case No. ADJ7568484
Regular
Nov 14, 2014

CHERISH ORANJE vs. CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant residing in Nevada who was receiving telephonic therapy from a California-licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the telephonic therapy violated Nevada law as the therapist was not licensed in Nevada. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, holding that California law governs treatment for injuries sustained in California, and the teletherapy in question complied with California's telehealth statutes. The Board concluded that the therapist's location in California while providing services to a Nevada resident did not violate California law, and any potential violation of Nevada law was irrelevant to the California workers' compensation claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical TreatmentTelephonic TherapyMarriage and Family TherapistTelemedicine Development ActTelehealth Advancement ActBusiness and Professions CodeSynchronous Interaction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P.

This appeal focuses on the statutory interpretation of the phrase 'by virtue of' within the luxury decontrol provisions (RSL §§ 26-504.1, 26-504.2) of the Rent Stabilization Law. Plaintiffs, tenants of the Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town Complex, alleged that their apartments were improperly deregulated, asserting that units receiving J-51 tax benefits should be exempt from high-rent/high-income decontrol. Defendants argued that the deregulation prohibition only applied if J-51 benefits were the exclusive reason for rent stabilization, an interpretation previously endorsed by the motion court and the DHCR. The appellate court rejected this narrow reading, concluding that 'by virtue of' does not imply exclusivity and that inserting 'solely' into the statute was an impermissible act of statutory construction. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's dismissal and reinstated the complaint, affirming that buildings receiving J-51 tax benefits remain subject to the RSL during the entire benefit period.

Rent Stabilization LawLuxury DecontrolJ-51 Tax Abatement ProgramStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceHousing LawTenant RightsLandlord-Tenant DisputeReal Property Tax LawNew York City Administrative Code
References
24
Case No. ADJ3035107 (SAC 0251655), ADJ9373621
Regular
Dec 15, 2017

Susan Petrillo vs. Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital, California Insurance Guarantee Association, Fremont Compensation Insurance Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Sierra Memorial Miners Hospital, American Zurich Insurance Company, Tristar Risk Management, Siera Nevada Memorial Hospital

The Appeals Board granted removal to amend a WCJ's decision, specifically deleting a finding that excluded PQME Dr. Amster's evidence. CIGA sought removal arguing the exclusion of Dr. Amster's reports, which supported its claim of a later cumulative trauma injury, caused prejudice. The Board found Dr. Amster was improperly selected as PQME due to CIGA's procedural errors but affirmed the need for further development of the medical record through Dr. Abelow's supplemental report. While granting removal to correct the exclusion of Amster, the Board affirmed the rest of the WCJ's F&O.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalFindings of Fact and OrderPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Fremont Compensation Insurance CompanyliquidationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesAmerican Zurich Insurance CompanySupplemental Report
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 69 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