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

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayden v. S & W Meat & Poultry

Claimant, a partner in S & W Meat & Poultry, sustained a serious injury. A workers' compensation claim was filed, but the carrier contested coverage, arguing that claimant, as a partner, had not formally elected coverage under Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (8). The Workers' Compensation Board applied estoppel, finding the carrier failed to advise the employer of the election requirement. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, holding that the employer's insurance broker, the Fear agency, was notified of the lack of coverage, and this knowledge is imputed to the employer. The court found insufficient evidence for estoppel and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEstoppelInsurance CoveragePartnershipAgent LiabilityImputed KnowledgePremium RefundAppellate ReviewRemittalWorkers' Compensation Law § 54 (8)
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Via Taxi, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained on March 31, 2007. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) denied coverage, citing the employer's prior policy cancellation due to nonpayment in 2003 and an outstanding balance at the time of reapplication in December 2006. SIF informed the employer in January 2007 that a new policy required debt satisfaction. Although the debt was cleared in March 2007, the employer did not reapply until May 11, 2007, making the new policy effective only from that date. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the employer lacked coverage on the injury date and imposed penalties under Workers’ Compensation Law § 26-a. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence for the Board's decision and rejecting the employer's estoppel argument.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoverageUninsured EmployerPenaltiesState Insurance FundPolicy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumsEstoppelAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2002

A.J. McNulty & Co. v. Lloyds of London

Plaintiff construction project subcontractors, holding general liability insurance from Lloyds of London and workers' compensation policies from AIG, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Lloyds. This action sought to compel Lloyds to defend and indemnify them in third-party lawsuits arising from worker injuries and deaths on a construction project, where AIG had already defended the plaintiffs in their capacity as third-party defendants. The Supreme Court granted Lloyds' cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that an employers' liability exclusion in the Lloyds policy validly precluded coverage for employee bodily injury or death related to employment. Furthermore, the court found that Lloyds' disclaimer of coverage was timely, as the insurer's obligation to disclaim arose only when it was served with the declaratory judgment action papers in September 2001, and it disclaimed shortly thereafter. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this decision, rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments.

Insurance LawEmployers' Liability ExclusionDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentDisclaimer of CoverageTimeliness of DisclaimerThird-Party ActionsGeneral Liability PolicyWorkers' Compensation PolicySubcontractors
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2006

Jara v. SMJ Environmental, Inc.

Claimant, a leased laborer for SMJ Environmental, Inc., was injured in December 2000. SMJ had initially contracted with PEO Services, Inc. for laborers and workers' compensation coverage, but later secured a policy from Frontier Insurance Company, reinsured by Clarendon National Insurance. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that SMJ was claimant's sole employer and Clarendon was liable for benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings. SMJ and Clarendon appealed, but the court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence to support both the employer-employee relationship and the insurance coverage for the claimant.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipLeased LaborersInsurance CoverageSubstantial EvidenceAsbestos RemovalAppeals BoardCarrier LiabilityEmployment ContractWorkers' Compensation Law § 54
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chenango Forks Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The dissent challenges the court's confirmation of a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination, which compelled a school district (petitioner) to reinstate Medicare Part B reimbursements. This PERB ruling overturned an arbitrator's decision that found no violation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding these reimbursements, citing a lack of binding past practice. The dissenting judge argues that PERB improperly disregarded its own post-arbitral deference policies, thereby allowing the Association to relitigate an issue already addressed in a fair arbitration. The dissent emphasizes the importance of arbitration finality and raises concerns about the protracted process and potential unconstitutionality of payments not explicitly authorized.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPublic Employment Relations BoardPast PracticeMedicare Part B ReimbursementsGrievanceImproper Practice ChargePost-Arbitral DeferenceAbuse of DiscretionLabor Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ10327919
Regular
Nov 08, 2019

MARIA SANCHEZ vs. BARON HR, LLC, BISON DATA SYSTEMS, INC., THE HARTFORD, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves a clerical error in the service date of a prior Board decision. The Board will correct the service date from October 8, 2019, to November 8, 2019. Separately, the defendant insurer sought reconsideration of a prior award, arguing fraud in the contractual relationship between employers and that insurance coverage disputes are subject to arbitration. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the matter for further proceedings and a new decision, clarifying that the WCJ should determine employer identity, while insurance coverage issues may proceed to arbitration.

Professional Employer OrganizationPEOLabor Code section 3602(d)general and special employmentjoint and several liabilityarbitrationLabor Code section 5275clerical errorPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home v. Local 144 Division of 1199, National Health & Human Services Employers Union

Plaintiff Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home sought to permanently enjoin an arbitration hearing related to the suspension of its employee, Cynthia Sullivan. The defendant, New York’s Health & Human Services Employers Union 1199/SEIU, AFL-CIO, opposed this motion and cross-moved for summary judgment and/or dismissal. The core issue revolved around whether an obligation to arbitrate survived the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in October 1997, given that the incident leading to Sullivan's suspension occurred in December 1998. The court determined that the dispute did not arise under the expired CBA, nor was there an implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate post-expiration disputes, as the plaintiff's conduct was inconsistent with implied consent. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff's petition was not moot, despite the arbitration having already taken place, because the court retains power to act until an arbitration award is confirmed. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to permanently enjoin the arbitration was granted, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss for mootness was denied.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCBA ExpirationImplied-in-fact ContractFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActPermanent InjunctionMootnessEmployee SuspensionJudicial Determination
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 11,254 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