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. 2020 NY Slip Op 05261 [187 AD3d 1252]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2020

Workers' Compensation Bd. of the State of N.Y. v. Williams Auto Parts Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board imposed a penalty on Williams Auto Parts Inc. and its president, Joseph Williams, for failing to maintain workers' compensation coverage. Following nonpayment, the Board obtained a judgment against them, which defendants subsequently moved to vacate in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied this motion, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the entry of judgment by the County Clerk was a ministerial act and that only the Appellate Division holds the authority to review final determinations of the Workers' Compensation Board prior to judgment.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentFailure to Secure CoverageJudgment VacaturSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate DivisionMinisterial ActStatutory InterpretationExclusive JurisdictionDue Process
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2012

China Auto Care, LLC v. China Auto Care (Caymans)

Plaintiffs China Auto Care, LLC and China Auto Care Holdings, LLC brought an action against China Auto Care (Caymans), Digisec Corporation, and the estate of Chander Oberoi, alleging various causes of action stemming from the 2011 sale of Digisec's assets. Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the parties' "Business Relationship and Shareholder Agreement." The court analyzed the scope of the arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act. Finding the clause to be broad, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were within its scope, as they "touch matters" governed by the Shareholder Agreement. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion, staying the litigation and compelling arbitration.

ArbitrationShareholder AgreementCorporate DisputeMotion to CompelFederal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit PrecedentFraudulent InducementCorporate GovernanceCayman Islands LawStay of Proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Winters v. Advance Auto Parts

Claimant, injured while working for Advance Auto Parts and subsequently for LKQ Broadway Used Auto Parts, was terminated from LKQ for absenteeism. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s finding that his separation was due to his injury, ruling that he voluntarily removed himself from the labor market due to insufficient evidence of attachment. This court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board erred by requiring documentation for participation in a job-location service (One-Stop Career Centers) despite finding the claimant's testimony credible. The court emphasized that the Board failed to adequately explain its departure from prior precedent, which accepted credible testimony without documentation for such services. The matter is remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary WithdrawalAbsenteeism TerminationCredible TestimonyDocumentary Evidence RequirementOne-Stop Career CentersVocational RehabilitationBoard PrecedentArbitrary Decision
References
11
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04809 [140 AD3d 532]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2016

Masi v. Cassone Trailer & Container Co.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which denied motions for summary judgment by defendant Cassone Leasing Inc. and third-party defendant LKQ Hunts Point Auto Parts Corp. The case involved Anthony Masi's personal injury claims against various defendants, including Cassone Trailer & Container Co. and Cassone Leasing Inc. The court clarified that a prior settlement agreement under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, entered into by Masi and his employer LKQ, only settled workers' compensation claims and did not release personal injury claims against other defendants. Furthermore, a subsequent broad release agreement between Masi and LKQ released claims solely in favor of LKQ, not extending to other defendants in the personal injury suit. The court did not address whether the release barred third-party actions against LKQ, as that issue was not raised below.

Summary judgmentPersonal injury claimsWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement agreementRelease agreementThird-party actionsAppellate reviewDismissal motionScope of releaseEmployer liability
References
1
Case No. ADJ 10470293
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

Herbert Miller vs. O'Reilly Auto Parts, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY, CORVEL

Here's a summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury for an applicant who was injured in a car accident while commuting home after picking up a company part. This trip was deemed a "special mission" for the employer, thus overcoming the going-and-coming rule defense. However, the issue of reimbursement for family-provided home health care was deferred for further development of the record, as the applicant did not initially meet the prescription requirements.

Going and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionAOE/COEHome Health CarePrescription RequirementMedical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600Industrial InjuryWCJPetition for Reconsideration
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1980

Fitch v. Jake Nussbaum Auto Parts, Inc.

On November 11, 1976, the claimant, an auto parts deliveryman, experienced chest pains and suffered a myocardial infarction while performing his duties. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge allowed the compensation claim. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board, after considering conflicting medical opinions including an impartial cardiologist, disallowed the claim. The Board's decision was based on substantial evidence indicating no causal relationship between the claimant's work and the infarction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's disallowance, noting that prior cases did not mandate a finding of compensability.

Myocardial InfarctionCausal RelationshipConflicting Medical OpinionSubstantial Evidence ReviewBoard DisallowanceAppellate AffirmanceCardiac EventWork-Related StressClaimant's Burden of ProofMedical Expert Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of Cagle v. White Auto Parts

The decedent, an auto parts salesperson, suffered a work-related back injury in 1988 and died in 1990. His widow, the claimant, initially filed a claim for death benefits, alleging death was consequential to the back injury, which was dismissed. In 1993, she filed a second claim, asserting death was causally related to occupational stress. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed this claim as untimely in 2001, a decision upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Board, prompting the claimant to appeal. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding the second claim untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, as the initial claim did not provide notice for a new theory of death. The court also found substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the claimant was not mentally incompetent under Workers’ Compensation Law § 115, accepting a psychiatrist’s report over other medical testimony. Additionally, the court agreed the two-year filing period did not commence when the claimant "knew or should have known" of an occupational disease, as the stress was linked to the employer's financial situation, not the inherent nature of the employment itself.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsClaim TimelinessOccupational StressMental IncompetencyCausal RelationshipVentricular FibrillationBack InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatute of LimitationsAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. ADJ6755820, ADJ7231247, ADJ6777953
Regular

NORMA HERNANDEZ vs. KRAGEN AUTO PARTS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Norma Hernandez against Kragen Auto Parts and its insurer, Zurich North America. The applicant, Hernandez, subsequently withdrew the petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has dismissed the petition. No further action will be taken on this matter.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantKragen Auto PartsZurich North America Insurance CompanyLong Beach District OfficeOrder Dismissing PetitionWithdrawn Petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ6624821
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

ED WACKERMAN vs. NAPA AUTO PARTS, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant Napa Auto Parts. This action was taken due to statutory time constraints and an initial review of the record, necessitating further study of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB requires more time to thoroughly understand the case and issue a just decision. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing directly with the WCAB Commissioners' office, not with any district office or via e-filing.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationOPINION AND ORDERADJ6624821Napa Auto PartsEmployers Compensation Insurance CompanyJuly 18 2014statutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ9927385
Regular
Sep 12, 2016

VAHAK AMIRIAN vs. MERCEDES & BMW AUTO PARTS & DISMANTLING, INCOPRORATED, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, UNINSURED

This case involves a defendant, Mercedes & BMW Auto Parts & Dismantling, Inc., seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB denied the petition, upholding the finding that the applicant, Vahak Amirian, was an employee, not a partner, based on a lack of credible evidence of a partnership. The WCAB also affirmed the finding that the defendant willfully failed to maintain workers' compensation insurance, rejecting the defendant's claims of good faith belief they had no employees. The WCAB gave significant weight to the judge's credibility determinations regarding witness testimony.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmployee vs. PartnerUninsured EmployerLabor Code Section 4554Willful Failure to InsureCredibility DeterminationFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ Report
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,794 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