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. 2013-1461 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Performance Plus Med., P.C. v. Nationwide Ins.

This case involves an appeal by Performance Plus Medical, P.C., acting as an assignee, against Nationwide Ins. The plaintiff sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Term affirmed this order, ruling that the defendant's timely verification request tolled the insurer's time to pay or deny the claim, thus rendering the plaintiff's action premature due to a failure to respond to the request. Additionally, the court found that the defendant had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case for denying claims related to the first cause of action based on the workers' compensation fee schedule, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentVerification requestInsurer's time to payPremature actionWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court orderFirst-party benefitsAssigned claims
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ9871891
Regular
Jun 13, 2019

MICHAEL SANABRIA vs. PERFORMANCE PLUS INSTALLATION, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal filed by the defendant. Removal is an extraordinary remedy only granted upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. The Board also noted that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is ultimately issued. Additionally, the defendant's attorneys were admonished for improperly attaching documents to the petition.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdjudication FileEvidentiary RecordWCJ ReportExtraordinary Remedy
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00122 [146 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

Nunez v. Park Plus, Inc.

Emilio Nunez was injured at a parking lot owned by DeSoto Parking, LLC, while employed by Little Man Parking, LLC, when a mechanical lift caused the amputation of his toe. DeSoto moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, contending Nunez did not suffer a grave injury and was its special employee, and that there was a written indemnity agreement with Park Plus, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, agreeing Nunez did not suffer a grave injury, but found factual issues regarding DeSoto being an alter ego of Little Man Parking, LLC, and the existence of an indemnity agreement. It also concluded DeSoto failed to establish Nunez as a special employee.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAlter EgoIndemnification AgreementSpecial EmployeeToe AmputationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewParking Lot Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Mosaic & Terrazzo Welfare, Pension, Annuity & Vacation Funds v. High Performance Floors, Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various employee benefit funds, brought this action under ERISA and LMRA to collect employer contributions from defendants HPF, Inc. and High Performance Floors, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that HPF was an alter ego of, or single employer with, High Performance, aiming to evade obligations under a collective bargaining agreement. Following a non-jury trial, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold concluded that High Performance and HPF were indeed alter egos and constituted a single employer. This determination was based on compelling evidence of shared management, employees, operations, equipment, and a common business purpose, coupled with an intent to circumvent union obligations. Consequently, the court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for the unpaid contributions.

Alter Ego DoctrineSingle Employer DoctrineERISA EnforcementLMRA LitigationUnpaid Employer ContributionsCollective Bargaining Agreement BreachEmployee Benefit Fund ProtectionCorporate DisregardLabor Relations LawJoint and Several Liability
References
30
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00945 [202 AD3d 509]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

O'Flaherty v. Columbo

Plaintiff Brian O'Flaherty alleges severe, permanent injuries from an assault by employees of defendant Burgess at a construction site. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including TJM Construction, a subcontractor, which then initiated third-party actions against plaintiff's employer, Jackson Installation. Jackson Installation moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions as no "grave injury" was alleged. The motion court properly denied Jackson Installation's motion, finding it failed to prima facie establish that plaintiff's injuries were not "grave." The court also found TJM Construction's argument regarding incomplete discovery on plaintiff's medical condition sufficient to deny the motion as premature. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Construction site injuryAssaultWorkers' Compensation LawGrave injurySummary judgmentCommon-law indemnificationContributionDiscoveryPremature motionAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Rehab Plus Inc.

Keith Henry sued Rehab Plus, Inc., for injuries sustained while wearing a back support belt manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment for Rehab Plus on the breach of express warranty and unfair and deceptive trade practices claims, finding a lack of evidence for an express warranty and no misleading conduct. However, the court denied summary judgment on the negligence, strict products liability, and breach of implied warranty claims. It determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendant's duty to warn foreseeable users about latent dangers associated with the back support belt and whether the product was fit for its ordinary purpose, thereby precluding summary dismissal of those claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantySummary JudgmentFailure to WarnProduct DefectBack Support BeltIndustrial SafetyDuty to Warn
References
53
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02769 [195 AD3d 140]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2021

Robinson v. Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc.

This class action sought unpaid gratuities under Labor Law § 196-d. The central question was whether an employer has a right to contractual indemnification from a third party for claims brought under this statute. The court determined that contractual indemnification in this context is against public policy, citing similar rulings on other labor laws like the FLSA. The Supreme Court had dismissed the third-party complaint, and this appellate decision affirmed that dismissal, stating that allowing such indemnification would undermine employers' willingness to comply with their statutory obligations.

unpaid gratuitiesLabor Lawcontractual indemnificationpublic policyemployer liabilitywage violationsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)third-party claimsclass actionappellate review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2008

Wildman v. Jensen

Plaintiff, an employee of nonparty Corbel Installations, was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder while installing cable service in the defendants' building pursuant to an agreement with third-party defendant Cablevision Systems New York City Corporation. The work was performed without the defendants' knowledge or consent. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied motions for summary judgment by both the defendants and third-party defendants. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff was not an 'employee' or 'employed' under the Labor Law due to Public Service Law § 228 (1) (a) and thus not entitled to its protections or to recover under common-law safe place to work duties. The court also noted that the plaintiff's affidavit, inconsistent with prior deposition testimony, created only a feigned issue of fact.

Summary JudgmentPublic Service LawLabor LawPremises LiabilityTrespasser StatusCable Installation InjuryAppellate ReversalDuty to WorkersFeigned Factual IssueNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,917 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