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
Mar 31, 2004

Schramm v. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This case concerns an appeal by third-party defendants W.T. Hickey Corp. and Hickey Electric Co., Inc., from an order denying their motion to dismiss claims for common-law indemnification and contribution as premature. The defendant third-party plaintiff, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, also filed a cross-appeal. The court examined Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which limits employer liability to third parties for contribution or indemnity unless a "grave injury" is proven, and discussed the distinction between general and special employment. The appellate court found the third-party defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a special employment relationship. Consequently, the cross-appeal was dismissed as the defendant was not aggrieved, and the original order was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewCross-Appeal
References
12
Case No. 2016-06-2191, State File No. 21968-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

Ingram, Chad v. Grocers Inc. & Cold Storage Co., Inc.

Chad Ingram, an employee of Grocers Ice & Cold Storage Co., Inc. (operating as Creation Gardens), sustained a left wrist injury in March 2016. After receiving initial workers' compensation benefits and returning to work, he was terminated in December 2016 before his initial compensation period expired. Mr. Ingram sought increased permanent partial disability benefits, contending his termination was retaliatory due to his injury. However, Creation Gardens asserted the termination was for cause, citing Mr. Ingram's insubordinate and confrontational behavior, including customer complaints and aggressive interactions with his supervisor. The Court determined that Mr. Ingram was indeed fired for misconduct that violated ordinary workplace expectations, and he failed to prove his termination was pretextual. Consequently, the Court denied his claim for increased benefits and dismissed the case.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityEmployment TerminationMisconductWorkplace RetaliationCause for TerminationJudicial ReviewImpairment RatingEmployer-Employee DisputeLegal Precedent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1975

Flynn v. Mario & Di Bono Plastering Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 8, 1975, denying the third-party defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or to compel plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff to provide certain particulars. The underlying case involves a wrongful death claim by plaintiffs, whose testate iron worker allegedly died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the manufacturer and supplier of the asbestos product for failing to comply with statutes, rules, and regulations. The third-party plaintiff, in turn, charged the appellant (third-party defendant) with similar violations. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, directing the plaintiffs-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent to furnish a further bill of particulars. The decision highlighted the requirement in tort actions to specifically identify any statutory violations asserted.

asbestos exposurewrongful deathlung cancerstatutory violationbill of particularsnegligencethird-party claimappellate reviewmotion to precludecause of action
References
1
Case No. ADJ6832001
Regular
Jan 06, 2011

RONALD BROWN vs. INLAND COLD STORAGE, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied Ronald Brown's Petition for Removal in the case against Inland Cold Storage and American Zurich Insurance Company. The WCAB adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report as the basis for this denial. The Board also declined to consider sanctions against the defendant at this time. Therefore, the petition for removal is definitively denied.

Petition for RemovalDenying RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportSanctionsAdministrative Law JudgeAmerican Zurich Insurance CompanyInland Cold StorageRonald BrownADJ6832001
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porcelli v. PMA Associates

Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband's death from respiratory failure, alleging it was an occupational disease from toxic chemical exposure during his 30+ years as a printer. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board later precluded the claimant's medical expert's report and testimony due to untimely filing under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (d) (12). This preclusion led the Board to find no established causal relationship, closing the case without benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate support for precluding the expert's evidence due to procedural non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsMedical ExpertReport PreclusionTimely FilingProcedural RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynch v. Rockland County Department of Social Services

The claimant, a typist for the Rockland County Department of Social Services, experienced an aggravation of a preexisting arthritic condition due to adverse working conditions at her workplace. She was exposed to water leaks and dampness after an office move and later to cold drafts from a broken window in an unheated building. Her physician attributed the arthritic flare-ups to these environmental exposures. The Workers' Compensation Board found this constituted a compensable accidental injury, applying the 'special increase and unusual hazard' and 'repeated trauma' doctrines to satisfy the time-definiteness requirement for an accident. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the conditions were sufficiently adverse to be considered an accidental injury.

ArthritisWork InjuryEnvironmental ExposurePreexisting ConditionCausal RelationshipWorkers' CompensationAggravationTime-DefinitenessAccidental InjuryRepeated Trauma
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraser v. 301-52 Townhouse Corp.

Plaintiffs, former residents of a cooperative apartment building owned by 301-52 Townhouse Corp., sought damages for personal injuries, including respiratory problems, rash, and fatigue, allegedly caused by dampness and mold. The defendants moved for summary judgment and preclusion of expert evidence. A Frye hearing was held to assess the general acceptance of plaintiffs' causation theory. The motion court granted the defendants' motion, precluding expert evidence and dismissing the personal injury claims, a decision that was upheld upon reargument and renewal. The appellate court affirmed, stating that association does not equate to causation and that plaintiffs failed to establish the general acceptance of their theory, specific causation, or reliable measurements of mold levels. The court also found good cause for the defendants' delayed motion for summary judgment.

Frye HearingExpert EvidenceCausationMold ExposureDampnessPersonal Injury ClaimSummary Judgment AffirmedScientific ReliabilityMedical Literature ReviewDifferential Diagnosis
References
10
Case No. WCB G074 4160
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2013

Matter of Qualls v. Bronx District Attorney's Office

Claimant William Sanchez sustained a work-related injury to his left knee and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. After two surgeries, his treating physician determined he reached maximum medical improvement and released him to return to work with restrictions. Sanchez then obtained an order of preclusion due to the employer/carrier's failure to provide medical evidence. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this order and rescinded the preclusion order because the employer/carrier provided the required medical evidence before the preclusion order was issued. The employer/carrier appeals the finding that the claimant's period of temporary total disability extends beyond the date of maximum medical improvement.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsKnee InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementPreclusion OrderAppellate DivisionMedical EvidenceTemporary Total DisabilityWork-Related InjurySedgwick CMS
References
0
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

Claim of Olistin v. Wellington

Claimant, a driver for Winthrop Car Service, sought workers' compensation benefits after a 1995 automobile accident. Winthrop Car Service, the employer, failed to appear at multiple hearings, leading to a preclusion order against presenting witnesses. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied Winthrop's request to vacate the preclusion order and found an employer-employee relationship existed, awarding benefits to the claimant. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying Winthrop's request to vacate the preclusion order, citing lack of explanation for their non-appearance. The court also affirmed the Board's finding of an employment relationship, noting Winthrop's control over the claimant's day-to-day work activities.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentPreclusion OrderAdjournmentExcusable NeglectAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceControl Test
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 214 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