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

In Re Bodin Apparel, Inc.

Bodin Apparel, Inc. (Bodin) appealed a bankruptcy court order that granted priority status to a claim by the ILGWU Southeast Region Health and Welfare Fund (the Fund) for unpaid employee benefit contributions. The bankruptcy court had found that Bodin ceased its principal business operations by October 31, 1980, entitling the Fund's claim for contributions from the preceding 180 days to priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4). Bodin contended that its post-October 1980 reorganization and liquidation activities constituted 'doing business,' which would shift the priority measurement date to its November 23, 1981 Chapter 11 filing, thereby eliminating the Fund's priority claim. The district court, under Judge Robert J. Ward, conducted a de novo review of the legal interpretation of 'cessation of business' within § 507(a)(4) and affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, concluding that Bodin had indeed ceased its principal business by October 31, 1980, thus upholding the priority of the Fund's $32,964.98 claim.

Bankruptcy LawEmployee Benefit ClaimsPriority StatusCessation of BusinessStatutory InterpretationChapter 11 ReorganizationUnpaid ContributionsAppellate ReviewBankruptcy Code Section 507(a)(4)Labor Union Fund
References
8
Case No. 2017-05-0225
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2017

Glasgow, Jack v. 31-W Insulation Co., Inc.

Jack Glasgow, an employee, sustained multiple injuries after falling while installing insulation for 31-W Insulation Co., Inc. The employer denied the workers' compensation claim, asserting willful misconduct and willful failure to use safety devices as affirmative defenses, citing Glasgow's prior similar injury and alleged disregard of safety protocols. The trial court initially awarded benefits, finding the employer failed to prove bona fide enforcement of its safety rules, as Glasgow was not disciplined for the previous incident and was subsequently rehired. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer did not demonstrate consistent, bona fide enforcement of its safety rules, which is a required element to establish its affirmative defenses. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationFall InjuryWillful MisconductSafety DeviceAffirmative DefenseBona Fide EnforcementEmployee SafetyEmployer LiabilityTennessee LawAppeals Board
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC

Naun Joya, an employee of Blue Stone Concrete Corp., was injured at a Brooklyn worksite when a plywood sheet struck his head while disassembling a fence. He filed suit against E 31 Partners, LLC and Twin Group Associates, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Joya's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, denying Joya's motion. The appellate court found that Joya failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accident was an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically lacking details on the height of the fall or the necessity of securing devices.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkFalling ObjectPlywoodConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardGravity RiskTriable Issues of Fact
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 1993

31 West 47th Street Co. v. Bevona

The case involves a petition to stay arbitration filed by 31 West 47th Street Co. and Lipton against Local 32B-32J, AFL-CIO. The dispute arose after 31 West stopped remitting membership benefit fund contributions, asserting the collective bargaining agreement had expired. The agreement contained an 'Evergreen Clause' stating it would remain in effect until a successor agreement was negotiated or cancelled with a three-day written notice, which 31 West failed to provide. The Supreme Court initially granted the stay, but the appellate court reversed, denying the petition and directing arbitration, emphasizing the 'Evergreen Clause' and that termination issues are for the arbitrator.

Collective bargaining agreementArbitration clauseEvergreen clauseUnion contributionsContract terminationAppellate reversalLabor relationsEmployer-employee disputeCommercial buildingNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1994

Bosley v. Shalala

The plaintiff, Sue A. Bosley, appealed a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that granted her disability benefits from October 1989 to October 1991 but denied them thereafter, based on an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding that her disability ceased. The District Court, presided over by Judge Curtin, reversed the ALJ's decision. The court found that the ALJ failed to apply the correct legal standard under 42 U.S.C. § 423(f) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594 for terminating benefits. Specifically, the ALJ did not adequately compare Ms. Bosley's medical condition post-October 1991 with her prior disabled state, nor did he give proper weight to her treating physician's reports and her own testimony regarding her continued limitations. Consequently, the case was remanded for the computation of benefits for the period after December 31, 1991, concluding that insufficient evidence supported the termination of her disability benefits.

Disability benefits appealSocial Security ActMedical improvement standardTreating physician ruleResidual functional capacitySedentary work limitationsLower back injuryChronic pain managementDepression and anxietyVocational rehabilitation considerations
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on October 3, 2011, which declared the defendant's answer stricken due to non-compliance with a conditional preclusion order from October 31, 2006, and limited the trial to the issue of damages. This order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not complying with discovery requests and did not present a meritorious defense, which was necessary to vacate the preclusion order. The court also clarified that a Workers' Compensation Board panel decision dated August 28, 2009, regarding the plaintiff's accident-related disability, does not have preclusive effect. Additionally, a prior decision and order of this Court, entered on April 9, 2013, was recalled and vacated.

Discovery SanctionsStriking AnswerConditional Preclusion OrderSelf-Executing OrderMeritorious DefenseReasonable ExcuseWorkers' Compensation BoardPreclusive EffectAppellate ReviewRecall and Vacate Order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange

Plaintiff Ralph Evans sought workers' compensation benefits for total and permanent incapacity following a fall on October 31, 1974, while employed at Big Texan Steak Ranch in Lubbock, Texas. The defendant insurer contended that any incapacity was due to a pre-existing injury from May 1974. The jury found no incapacity resulted from the October 1974 injury and awarded $297.00 for medical care. Evans appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, a sole cause instruction, a judicial admonition, and the admission of evidence concerning a prior compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings, the sole cause instruction, and the admissibility of the prior claim as an admission.

Workers' CompensationFall InjuryPre-existing ConditionIncapacity BenefitsJury FindingsSole Cause InstructionMedical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePrior ClaimAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06685 [165 AD3d 449]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2018

White v. 31-01 Steinway, LLC

Plaintiff, a sign installer, sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while working on a retail store renovation project. The case involves multiple defendants including the property owner, general contractor, and signage subcontractor, disputing liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, denying several summary judgment motions, and affirmed others, concluding that issues of fact remained regarding the general contractor's responsibilities for plaintiff's safety and that the signage subcontractor qualified as a statutory agent under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also found Express and the Steinway defendants liable for failure to provide adequate safety devices.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionConstruction Site AccidentFall from LadderGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityStatutory Agent DoctrineContractual Indemnification DisputePersonal Injury ClaimWorkplace Safety Violation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Munson v. Seneca County

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding an employer’s obligation to pay interest on medical bills in a controverted claim. The self-insured employer controverted the claimant’s injury but paid hospital bills after compensability was established. The hospital, as medical provider, sought interest on bills submitted prior to the compensability finding, arguing the employer failed to timely object to the bill amounts. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the request for interest, concluding the employer was not obligated to pay until compensability was determined. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding its interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-g and its regulations to have a rational basis, as the statute defers payment obligations until the employer’s liability is finally determined.

Workers' CompensationMedical BillsInterest PaymentEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTimely ObjectionCompensabilityBoard DecisionAppealNew York Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 1996

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Donjon Marine Co.

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund (SIF) sued Donjon Marine Co., Inc. for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. Donjon claimed the policy was cancelled effective October 28, 1991, based on an informational letter from the Workers' Compensation Board. The lower court granted partial summary judgment to Donjon and limited SIF's discovery. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the informational letter was not a valid notice of cancellation from SIF and did not meet the strict statutory requirements of Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). Consequently, Donjon failed to make a prima facie showing of cancellation, and the limitations on discovery were vacated, with Donjon's answer to be stricken if discovery demands are not met.

Insurance PremiumsWorkers' Compensation PolicyPolicy CancellationSummary JudgmentDiscovery DemandsStatutory ComplianceNotice RequirementsPrima Facie ShowingAppellate ReviewSupreme Court Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,259 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