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

Olivieri v. P.M.B. Construction, Inc.

The Trustees of Suburban New York Regional Council of Carpenters Welfare, Pension, Vacation, Annuity, Apprentice Training and Charitable Trust Funds sued Syngen Group Corp. and Premier Staffing Solutions of Northeast Corp. for unpaid employee fringe benefit contributions under ERISA. The plaintiffs argued that the Premier Defendants, who leased carpentry employees to the PMB Defendants, were 'joint employers' and therefore jointly and severally liable. The Premier Defendants countered that as non-signatories to the collective bargaining agreements, they were not obligated to contribute. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the Premier Defendants' motion, ruling that joint employer status alone, absent a direct contractual obligation, fraud, or alter ego relationship, is insufficient to impose ERISA liability on a non-signatory.

ERISAMultiemployer Pension PlansFringe Benefit ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementsJoint Employer DoctrineNon-signatory LiabilityContractual ObligationSummary JudgmentCorporate Veil PiercingFraud Exception
References
38
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03497 [206 AD3d 620]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2022

Everett v. CMI Servs. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ron Everett, sustained personal injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated water and feces in an employee break room at his workplace. Defendants, including CMI Services Corp., Omni New York, LLC, and Plaza Residences, LLP, moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses such as inherent job hazard, open and obvious condition, and employer protection under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was not engaged in his cleaning duties at the time of the fall, the dangerous condition was not proven to be non-inherently dangerous despite being open and obvious (due to hidden feces), and the defendants failed to establish an alter ego or special employer relationship to invoke Workers' Compensation Law immunity. The court concluded that the defendants did not demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary Judgment MotionCommon-Law NegligenceOpen and Obvious ConditionInherent Job HazardWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Alter Ego DoctrineSpecial EmployerAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06805
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Bordonaro v. E.C. Provini Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Steven Bordonaro, a carpenter for CBI Drywall, was injured unloading a 1000-pound cabinet from a truck with a pallet jack, falling four feet from a liftgate. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's orders, dismissing Labor Law § 241(6) and common-law negligence claims against most defendants. However, triable issues remained for E.C. Provini Co. under Labor Law § 200 regarding its failure to provide a forklift. Conditional contractual indemnification was granted to non-owner defendants from CBI Drywall, and contractual indemnification claims against CBI were reinstated for certain other defendants. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against CBI were dismissed due to workers' compensation and absence of grave injury.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkPallet JackFour-foot FallIndustrial Code ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGrave InjuryThird-Party Claim
References
9
Case No. ADJ7174342
Regular
Jul 29, 2010

ALVARO CARRILLO vs. CP MANUFACTURING, ZENITH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was sought from a non-final procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights. The WCAB also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding their objection to venue untimely. The defendant failed to file their venue objection within the 30-day window and did not provide the required sworn statement regarding receipt of notice. Therefore, venue remains in Los Angeles, though a future venue change for good cause is not precluded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenueFinal OrderProcedural OrderLabor Code section 5501.5(c)Appeals Board rule 10410Untimely ObjectionVenue
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salim Oleochemicals, Inc. v. M/V SHROPSHIRE

Plaintiff Salim Oleochemicals, Inc. sued M/V Shropshire and several other defendants for $737,136.67 in damages due to contamination of a glycerine shipment during a maritime action. The core of the dispute revolves around an arbitration clause in a Contract of Affreightment, incorporated into a Bill of Lading, which mandates arbitration in London under English law. Salim initially attempted to arbitrate solely under the Contract, to which it was not a signatory, leading to the dismissal of its London arbitration claim for lack of jurisdiction. Upon returning to the U.S. District Court, defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Bill of Lading, arguing it bound all parties, including non-signatories. The Court granted the defendants' motion, compelling Salim to arbitrate its claims against all proper defendants in London under the Contract as incorporated into the Bill, dismissed cross-motions for summary judgment, and denied Salim's motion for sanctions against defense counsel.

Maritime LawArbitration AgreementBill of LadingContract IncorporationCargo DamageFederal Arbitration ActNon-Signatory EnforcementLimitation of LiabilityIn Rem JurisdictionTort vs. Contract Claims
References
25
Case No. ADJ1431147 (SDO 0364329)
Regular
Dec 05, 2008

PEDRO BANDERAS vs. WELK RESORT OF SAN DIEGO, EMPLOYERS DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant's petition for reconsideration and removal is dismissed because they failed to serve the California Employment Development Department (EDD) with the petition, violating procedural requirements. Even without the procedural defect, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits based on the WCJ's findings. The WCJ previously awarded applicant temporary disability benefits and penalties, finding an industrial injury and continued need for medical treatment, despite defendant's arguments regarding applicant's termination for drug test non-cooperation.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilityLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 4650SDI BenefitsUnemployment Insurance Code Section 2629.1Employment Development Department
References
3
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. 8074/89
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Palazo

The defendant, charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, moved to have her attorney present at her presentence interview with the Department of Probation. This request challenged the Department's Executive Policy and Procedure No. 20-2-83, which generally disallows counsel's presence during such interviews. The defendant argued the policy was unconstitutional and that exceptional circumstances, including her low education, non-English speaking status, emotional state, and spousal privilege concerns, warranted an exception. The court, presided over by Judge Norman George, denied the motion, upholding the constitutionality of the policy. The court reasoned that the presentence interview is a non-adversarial information-gathering stage and that New York's statutory scheme adequately ensures fundamental fairness without requiring counsel's presence at the interview itself, further concluding that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.

Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselPresentence InterviewDepartment of Probation PolicyConstitutional LawSixth AmendmentSentencing StageExceptional CircumstancesSpousal PrivilegeDue Process
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saddle Brook Surgicenter, LLC v. All State Insurance

Plaintiff, a medical service provider and assignee of Hector Flores, initiated an action against defendant, an insurer, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical services provided. The claim was for $11,778, of which defendant paid $1,629.75, denying the balance on the grounds that the billing exceeded the New Jersey fee schedule. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that a recent amendment to 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 made the defense of billing above the fee schedule non-waivable, regardless of the timeliness of its denial. The court agreed, holding that 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) (1) (ii) abrogates prior case law, allowing insurers to assert fee schedule defenses even if the denial was not issued within 30 days. Consequently, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff's claim with prejudice.

No-Fault InsuranceSummary JudgmentMedical Billing DisputesFee ScheduleOut-of-State ProvidersInsurance LawRegulatory InterpretationTimeliness of DenialNon-Waivable DefenseNew York Regulations
References
20
Case No. ADJ9625941
Regular
Oct 15, 2015

DANIEL BORGSTROM vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHANNEL ISLANDS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration, as they were taken from non-final interlocutory orders concerning a discovery dispute over deposing the Chief of Police. The applicant's petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the WCJ rescinded the order denying the deposition, thereby allowing it. Finally, the defendant's petition for removal was denied, as they failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and liberal discovery for the fair resolution of cases was favored.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder RescindingDepositionChief of PoliceDiscovery DisputeNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 16,963 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