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

Tower Insurance v. Mike's Pipe Yard & Building Supply Corp.

An insurer (Plaintiff) filed a motion for summary judgment to disclaim coverage for an underlying personal injury action, citing the insured's (Mike’s Pipe Yard and Building Supply) failure to provide timely notice of an occurrence as stipulated in the liability insurance policy. The insured had initially informed its broker about the incident, assuming the broker acted as the insurer's agent; however, no such principal-agent relationship existed. The trial court initially denied the plaintiff's motion, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion and declaring that the plaintiff had no duty to defend or indemnify in the underlying action due to the untimely notification.

Insurance Coverage DisputeTimely Notice ProvisionDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Broker AgencyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPersonal Injury Action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2006

Beaucejour v. General Linen Supply & Laundry Co.

The defendants, General Linen Supply and Laundry Co., Inc., and Cascade Linen Supply Corp., appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The appellate court modified the order by granting summary judgment to General Linen, finding that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions barred the plaintiff's tort claim against their employer. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Cascade, concluding that Cascade failed to provide sufficient evidence, based on personal knowledge, to establish it was an alter ego of General Linen, and thus could not invoke the same defense. The decision highlights the importance of presenting competent evidence in admissible form to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. This case underscores the legal requirements for establishing an employer-employee relationship defense and the alter ego doctrine in summary judgment motions.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionsAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ReviewPrima Facie EntitlementProbative ValuePersonal KnowledgeTriable Issue of Fact
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yklik Medical Supply, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Yklik Medical Supply, Inc., a medical supply provider, sued Allstate Insurance Company to recover $317 in unpaid medical bills for equipment supplied to its assignor, Tammy Agosto. Yklik moved for summary judgment, asserting proper bill submission and Allstate's failure to timely pay or deny the claim. Allstate argued that the charges exceeded the Workers' Compensation fee schedule and that a partial payment had been made. The court found that Yklik established a prima facie case. The central issue was whether Allstate's fee schedule defense was precluded due to its failure to issue a timely denial within 30 days as mandated by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. The court ruled that since Allstate waited 56 days to send its denial, it was precluded from raising the fee schedule defense, and therefore, summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

No-fault insurancesummary judgmenttimely denialfee schedulepreclusion ruleinsurance lawmedical supplybilling practicespersonal injury protectionassignor
References
19
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schick v. 200 Blydenburgh, LLC

The plaintiff, a Verizon field technician, was injured when his ladder slipped due to sand, dirt, or dust on the floor while installing telephone lines in a warehouse. The warehouse was leased by Pal Supply Corp. from 200 Blydenburgh, LLC. The plaintiff and his wife commenced an action seeking damages for personal injuries under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The appellate court modified the Supreme Court's order, finding that Pal Supply Corp. failed to make a prima facie showing to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Additionally, the defendants failed to show that the plaintiff's work did not fall under the enumerated activities of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). However, the denial of the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) was affirmed due to unresolved issues of fact regarding the accident's cause.

Personal InjuryLadder FallWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFactual IssuesNegligenceConstruction WorkWorker Safety
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1995

Lewis v. Summit Office Supply, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Manhattan Transfer, Inc., was injured by a forklift operated by defendant Vincent Carbone, an employee of Summit Office Supply, Inc. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendants. The defendants asserted an affirmative defense, arguing that workers' compensation was the plaintiff's sole remedy. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, finding that Vincent Carbone was a special employee of Manhattan Transfer, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Vincent Carbone was a coemployee of the plaintiff, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6].

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee LiabilityAffirmative DefenseAppellate Court DecisionForklift AccidentEmployment Relationship
References
2
Case No. 526722
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2019

Matter of Persons v. Halmar Intl., LLC

Claimant Matthew Persons appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by exaggerating his condition and failing to disclose volunteer firefighter activities, leading to disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as it was based on speculation, surmise, and mischaracterizations of claimant's activities and medical records. The court noted that claimant was forthcoming about his volunteer work and that video surveillance did not conclusively contradict his reported injuries. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawFraudExaggerated ConditionVolunteer Firefighter ActivitiesWage Replacement BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyPsychiatric DisabilityVideo SurveillanceRemittal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wysocki v. Balalis

The plaintiff suffered personal injuries after falling from a scaffold supplied by York Scaffold Equipment Corp. and erected by his employer, Prevail General Contracting, Inc. The plaintiff sued both entities alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment filed by York and Prevail. On appeal, the order was reversed. York's motion was granted because it did not supervise the plaintiff's work, and Prevail's motion was granted due to the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law, which barred the action against the employer.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law ViolationsWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityEmployer LiabilitySupplier LiabilityAppellate Court DecisionNegligenceConstruction Site Safety
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2006

Magadan v. Interlake Packaging Corp.

The plaintiff, a factory worker, sustained personal injuries while operating an S3A 7/8” Book Stitcher, leading to a lawsuit against the manufacturer (Interlake Packaging Corporation), its successor (Samuel Strapping Services), and the seller (Suburban Graphic Supply Corp.). The injury occurred when her finger was caught by the machine's needle due to an improperly adjusted finger guard. Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no design defect. However, the appellate court partially reversed this decision, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendants' failure to provide adequate warnings about operating the machine without proper finger guard adjustment. Furthermore, the court found triable issues concerning the defendants' post-sale duty to warn about safety modifications.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityNegligenceDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppealFactory Worker InjuryMachine SafetyPost-Sale Duty to Warn
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02232 [159 AD3d 1321]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Matter of Larosa v. ABC Supply Co., Inc.

Claimant Stephen Larosa, a crane operator, sought workers' compensation benefits for a right knee injury in April 2015. The employer, ABC Supply Company, Inc., and its carrier controverted the claim, arguing it did not arise from employment. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found the injury to be work-related. The employer appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Larosa's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, despite arguments concerning inconsistent accounts, an idiopathic condition, and insufficient medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation ClaimRight Knee InjuryCausally Related InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityIdiopathic ConditionPreexisting ConditionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,060 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