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. ADJ8610560
Regular
Sep 19, 2013

William Brown (Deceased), Annette Brown vs. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS

This case involves a widow's petition for workers' compensation death benefits for her truck driver husband who died in a motorcycle accident after leaving work. The administrative law judge denied the claim, finding it barred by the going and coming rule. The applicant argued the special risk exception applied due to hazardous road conditions and a quantitatively greater risk compared to the general public. The majority of the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ that the risks were not exclusive to employment.

Going and Coming RuleSpecial Risk ExceptionDeath BenefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentIndustrial InjuryTruck DriverNegligencePublic RoadZone of DangerHazard
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1992

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurer's claim for contribution. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, the liability insurer for Trio Drug Corporation and additional insured 58 Realopp Corporation, sought contribution from Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, Trio's workers' compensation carrier. Aetna had settled an underlying injury action where it represented both Realopp and Trio, and subsequently sued for 50% of the settlement amount. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Aetna's summary judgment motion and the granting of Greater New York's cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court applied the anti-subrogation rule, finding that Aetna could not assert a subrogated claim against its own insured, Trio, due to potential conflicts of interest arising from its dual representation in the underlying action.

anti-subrogation ruleconflict of interestsummary judgmentcontributionworkers' compensationliability insurancethird-party claimcommon law indemnityappellate reviewinsurer dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commercial Risk Reinsurance Co. v. Security Insurance

Petitioners Commercial Risk Reinsurance Company Limited and Commercial Risk Re-Insurance Company (collectively “Commercial Risk”) initiated an action to vacate an arbitration award obtained by respondent Security Insurance Company of Hartford (“Security”). Security subsequently cross-moved to confirm the Award. The District Court denied Commercial Risk’s motion to vacate and granted Security’s motion to confirm the Award, finding that Commercial Risk failed to establish sufficient grounds for misconduct by the arbitrators. Commercial Risk then sought reconsideration of this order, arguing improper exclusion of a witness and documents related to damages. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its original decision and emphasizing the broad discretion granted to arbitrators in procedural matters, particularly given the "Honorable Engagement" clause in the parties' agreement.

ArbitrationReinsurance ContractsVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardMotion for ReconsiderationFederal Arbitration ActInternational ArbitrationEvidentiary RulingsJudicial ReviewArbitrator Discretion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

474431 Associates v. AXA Global Risks US Insurance

This case involves an appeal by Allcity Insurance Company in a consolidated action seeking a declaratory judgment regarding co-insurance liability between Allcity and AXA Global Risks US Insurance Company. The dispute arose from an underlying action where an injured worker obtained a judgment against a property owner, which was satisfied by the owner's insurer, AIG. AIG then sought reimbursement from the worker's employer's carriers, Allcity (worker's compensation) and AXA (general liability). The Supreme Court initially favored AXA, but the appellate court reversed, holding that AXA's disclaimer of coverage was untimely under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). The matter was remitted to declare AXA a co-insurer with Allcity.

Insurance Law § 3420 (d)Disclaimer of CoverageTimely Notice RequirementCo-Insurance DisputeGeneral Liability InsuranceWorker's Compensation InsuranceSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Court DecisionDeclaratory ReliefPolicy Exclusion
References
6
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06041 [130 AD3d 507]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2015

Transport Workers Union of Greater N.Y. v. Bianco

The Transport Workers Union of Greater New York filed a complaint against Carmen Bianco, challenging a provision in their collective bargaining agreement. The union argued that the agreement's procedures for predisciplinary suspensions violated Civil Service Law § 75. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department. The appellate court concluded that rights under Civil Service Law § 75 can be supplemented, modified, or replaced by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, thereby upholding the dismissal of the union's complaint.

Collective Bargaining AgreementPredisciplinary SuspensionsCivil Service LawAppellate DivisionMotion to DismissUnion RightsLabor LawAffirmed DecisionJudicial PrecedentEmployee Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, acting as a governmental agency and successor in interest to several insolvent workers' compensation self-insured trusts, commenced an action against a third-party administrator (Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.), its employees, related corporate entities, insurance brokers (including Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc.), former trustees of one of the trusts (RITNY), and an actuarial firm (Regnier Consulting Group, Inc.). The plaintiff alleged misconduct and malfeasance by the defendants led to trust insolvencies and sought to recover accumulated deficits. The case involves cross appeals challenging the Supreme Court’s partial dismissal of the complaint, specifically concerning the timeliness of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and common-law indemnification, applying the repudiation and discovery rules for statute of limitations. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by dismissing specific claims against Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc., broadening the temporal scope of breach of fiduciary duty claims against other defendants, and reinstating common-law indemnification claims against several RITNY trustees, affirming the order as modified and remitting the case.

Workers' CompensationBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractCommon-Law IndemnificationStatute of LimitationsRepudiation RuleDiscovery RuleTrust Insolvency
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1959

Anzio Frocks, Inc. v. Joint Board Dress & Waistmakers' Union of Greater New York

Anzio Frocks, Inc. sought an order to enjoin arbitration proceedings initiated by the Joint Board Dress and Waistmakers’ Union of Greater New York and the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union, citing alleged violations of a Collective Agreement. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the unions because service on their attorneys was deemed ineffective. Furthermore, Anzio failed to demonstrate any basis for irreparable damage, and the court noted a history of delaying tactics by Anzio. Consequently, the court denied Anzio's petition to enjoin the arbitration.

ArbitrationInjunctionJurisdictionService of ProcessCollective AgreementIrreparable DamageLabor UnionStay OrderDelaying TacticsFederal Court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York

Jose Cruz, a bus operator for the New York City Transit Authority (TA), was found to have color-blindness during a routine physical examination. A physician recommended a road test to assess his fitness, but the TA refused, asserting the test was non-medical and insufficient to evaluate his ability to meet required vision standards under Vehicle and Traffic Law and NYCRR regulations. Subsequently, the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100 (TWU) filed a grievance on Cruz's behalf, which the TA denied, leading to a request for binding arbitration. The TA then initiated a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, arguing the grievance was not arbitrable. The Supreme Court denied the TA's petition and dismissed the proceeding, a decision that was ultimately affirmed by the appellate court, which found no statutory or public policy prohibitions against arbitrating the dispute under the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementbus operatorcolor-blindnessvision requirementsroad testpublic sectorarbitrabilitygrievanceappellate decision
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05229
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

Matter of Transport Workers Union of Greater N.Y., Local 100, AFL-CIO v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This case concerns an appeal by the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100, AFL-CIO, from an order denying their petition to vacate an arbitration award. The petitioners contended that the arbitration award was indefinite and nonfinal. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the arbitrator's award was definite and final as it left no matters open for future dispute. All remaining contentions raised by the petitioners were found to be without merit.

ArbitrationVacaturAppellate ReviewFinal AwardDefinite AwardCPLR Article 75Judicial ReviewLabor DisputeUnionTransit Authority
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 1,615 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