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
Sep 14, 1989

Kinek v. Gulf & Western, Inc.

The Kinek plaintiffs and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) sued Gulf & Western, Inc. (G&W) and its pension plan for alleged violations of a collectively-bargained pension agreement and ERISA, stemming from a 'spin-off' where G&W transferred assets and liabilities to Horsehead Industries' pension plan. Plaintiffs argued G&W failed to fully fund vested pension benefits upon this transfer, as contractually required by the G&W Plan's sections 3.1 and 10.2. The court confirmed plaintiffs' standing and applied a de novo standard of review. It ruled that the G&W Plan's provisions, when read together, obligated G&W to provide full funding for vested benefits during an asset transfer. Consequently, the court denied G&W's motion for summary judgment and granted the Kinek plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment, holding G&W liable.

ERISALMRAPension PlanEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentContract DisputePension FundingAsset TransferSpin-offVested Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2000

Claim of Lesperance v. Gulf Oil Co.

The claimant, a former truck driver for Gulf Oil Company, developed bilateral torn rotator cuffs, diagnosed in September 1991, while working part-time for Susse Chalet. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the condition an occupational disease, fixing the disablement date as September 3, 1991, and attributed it to employment with both Gulf and Susse Chalet, allowing Susse Chalet to pursue apportionment. The current appeal concerns the Board's decision from April 3, 2000, which established the claimant's average weekly wage based solely on employment with Susse Chalet. The claimant argued that due to the disease's degenerative nature and long employment with Gulf, wages from both employers should be considered for the average weekly wage. However, the Board's decision to base the average weekly wage solely on Susse Chalet employment was affirmed, citing Workers' Compensation Law provisions that define wage and average weekly wage based on employment at the time of injury and absence of provisions for successive employers.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational Disease ApportionmentDate of DisablementSuccessive Employment WagesRotator Cuff InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law InterpretationDegenerative DiseaseStatutory DefinitionsConcurrent Employment DistinctionBoard Decision Appeal
References
0
Case No. ADJ7176285
Regular
May 23, 2011

FRANCISCO CASAS LEYVA vs. WAR MART #2242, AVIZENT FRANK GATES SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of a prior decision regarding Francisco Casas Leyva's claim against War Mart \#2242 and Avizent Frank Gates Services. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCALJ) in its decision. The Board also gave great weight to the WCALJ's credibility findings. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFrancisco Casas LeyvaWar MartAvizent Frank Gates ServicesOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.credibility finding
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

STUTIS v. De Dietrich Group

This case involves Gulf War Veterans suing Buchi Labortechnik AG and De Dietrich Process Systems, S.A., alleging injuries from chemical weapons supplied to Iraq. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs cross-moved for jurisdictional discovery and leave to amend their complaint to establish jurisdiction through the defendants' U.S. subsidiaries. The court examined New York law regarding general jurisdiction, specifically the 'agent' and 'mere department' theories for subsidiary liability. Finding insufficient factual allegations to establish jurisdiction over the foreign parent corporations or their subsidiaries, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs' requests.

Personal JurisdictionForeign CorporationSubsidiary LiabilityAgent TheoryMere Department TestRule 12(b)(2)Rule 15(a)Rule 4(k)(2)New York Civil Practice Law and RulesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alongi v. McAllister Lighterage Line, Inc.

This case involves a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury complaint due to the plaintiff's lack of standing. The plaintiff, a longshoreman employed by Pittston Stevedoring Corp., sustained injuries in 1973 and subsequently accepted workers' compensation benefits paid by Pittston's insurer, Gulf Insurance Group. Under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, acceptance of an award operates as an assignment of the employee's rights to sue a third party to the employer (or its insurer) if the employee fails to commence suit within six months. The plaintiff's failure to file within this period resulted in the statutory assignment of his rights to Gulf. Consequently, the court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to maintain the action, as Gulf is the proper party to sue. The motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, allowing Gulf 30 days to commence its own action.

Personal injuryLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActStandingAssignment of rightsSummary judgmentSubrogationThird-party actionGeneral Obligations LawInsurer's rightsEmployer liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morin v. Empiyah & Co., LLC

Plaintiffs, represented by Patrick Morin (Empire State Regional Council of Carpenters) and union trust fund trustees, sought unpaid wages and benefits against contractor Empiyah & Company and its surety, Gulf Insurance Company. The action stemmed from carpentry work on the Stony Point Golf Club clubhouse, with claims brought under federal labor laws and New York State Finance Law § 137. After Empiyah defaulted, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against Gulf. The court, presided by Judge Chin, granted summary judgment, holding Gulf liable under the bond for both actual work performed from October 20-23, 2003, and for wages during the strike days of October 24, 27, and 28, 2003. The decision emphasized Section 137's remedial nature and concluded that Gulf's surety liability extended to Empiyah's obligations, including strike pay, under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Unpaid wagesFringe benefitsSurety bondLabor Management Relations ActERISANew York State Finance Law Section 137Summary judgmentPublic improvement contractStrike wagesContractor liability
References
20
Case No. ADJ4478194 (ANA 0379216)
Regular
Nov 25, 2008

MILTON T. WYNN vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS, ATLANTA FALCONS, HOUSTON TEXANS, TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, ST. LOUIS RAMS, GULF INSURANCE COMPANY; WARD NORTH AMERICA, INC., Permissibly SelfInsured;, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY Successor in interest by merger GULF INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow an Independent Medical Examiner (IME) to review newly obtained medical records related to the applicant's pre-existing hip condition. The defendant argued these records were crucial for proper apportionment of permanent disability and that the IME lacked a complete history. The Board rescinded the prior award to develop the medical record further, allowing the IME to provide a supplemental report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical Examinersubstantial medical evidencebilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysisapportionmentpermanent disabilitycumulative traumaagreed medical examinersupplemental reportnewly discovered evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 1995

International Rescue Committee v. Reliance Insurance

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) sued Reliance Insurance Company for breach of contract after Reliance denied a workers' compensation claim for an employee injured by a landmine in Somalia, citing a policy exclusion for injuries arising from war or civil unrest. The IRC's motion for summary judgment was denied by the IAS Court, which the Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed. The affirmation was based on the need for further discovery by Reliance regarding the conditions in Somalia and the existence of factual issues concerning whether the employee's injury arose from civil war, rebellion, or insurrection, as specified in the exclusion clause.

Insurance CoverageWorkers' CompensationPolicy ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionDiscovery NeedsFactual DisputeCivil War ClauseInternational IncidentLandmine InjuryBreach of Insurance Contract
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rice v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co.

A seaman (plaintiff) sued the owner of a dredge (defendant) for injuries sustained in a fall, alleging unseaworthiness and negligence due to an oily ladder. The jury initially found the defendant negligent. However, the court set aside the verdict, finding insufficient evidence that oil was present on the ladder or that the defendant had notice of such a condition. The court also dismissed claims regarding the adequacy of the cleaning crew, concluding there was no basis to find the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. Judgment was ultimately entered in favor of the defendant.

Seaman injuryVessel unseaworthinessNegligence claimJury verdictDirected verdictRule 50(b) motionEvidence sufficiencyOily ladderDuty of careFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
5
Case No. ADJ7761887
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

OMAR SMITH vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, GULF INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the New York Giants' petition for reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's decision. The Board found that a mandatory forum selection clause in Omar Smith's employment contracts, requiring New Jersey law and jurisdiction for disputes, was reasonable and enforceable. Applying the precedent set in *McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals*, the Board determined there was a limited connection to California regarding Smith's employment and claimed injury. Therefore, the WCAB declined to exercise jurisdiction and ordered that Smith take nothing on his claim.

WCABreconsiderationforum selection clauseNew Jersey Workers' Compensation CommissionMcKinley v. Arizona Cardinalsexclusive jurisdictioncumulative injurypermanent disabilityindustrial injuryprofessional athlete
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 39 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