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. ADJ6779197, ADJ7472140, ADJ7964720
Regular
Feb 27, 2014

ISMAEL NAVARRO vs. CITY OF MONTEBELLO, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case concerns whether an applicant must return to the same Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) for subsequent injury claims. The defendant argued that under Rule 35.5(e), the applicant should be evaluated by the original QME due to overlapping body parts and parties. The Appeals Board granted removal, intending to hold that the Labor Code does not require return to the same QME for new claims. Furthermore, the Board proposes that Rule 35.5(e)'s requirement to use the same QME for new injuries with the same body parts is inconsistent with the Labor Code and thus invalid. The Board is seeking further input from parties and the Division of Workers' Compensation before issuing a final en banc decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalFindings of FactQualified Medical EvaluatorRule 35.5(e)Labor CodeEn Banc DecisionCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryClaim Form
References
19
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1995

Curran v. City of New York

The City of New York, as a defendant third-party plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated September 15, 1995. The original order had granted a motion by third-party defendant E.E. Cruz & Co., Inc. to dismiss the City's claim for common-law indemnification and contribution entirely. The appellate court modified the order, ruling that the dismissal should only apply to common-law indemnification up to the $1,000,000 limit of the Aetna insurance policy. This decision was based on the antisubrogation rule, as Aetna insured both the City and E.E. Cruz under the same policy. The modified order was subsequently affirmed.

Common-law indemnificationContributionAntisubrogation ruleInsurance policy limitsThird-party plaintiffThird-party defendantAppellate reviewPersonal injuries damagesInsurance lawMotion to dismiss
References
1
Case No. ADJ6779197, ADJ7472140, ADJ7964720
Significant

Ismael Navarro, Applicant vs. City of Montebello, administered by Corvel Corporation

The Appeals Board granted removal to address whether a worker with new injury claims must be evaluated by the same Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) from a prior claim, intending to rule that Labor Code does not require it and that Rule 35.5(e) is invalid.

RemovalEn BancQualified Medical EvaluatorQME PanelRule 35.5(e)Labor CodeSubsequent InjuryMedical EvaluationCompensabilityClaim Form
References
17
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00959 [147 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Gonsalves v. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp.

The plaintiffs, Andrew Gonsalves and Shahazad M. Rasheed, sustained personal injuries at a construction site managed by Geiger Construction Company, Inc. and owned by 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. when a parapet wall collapsed during the lowering of a power washer. They sued 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. and Perimeter Bridge & Scaffold Co. for Labor Law violations. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. then initiated third-party actions against Geiger Construction for contribution and common-law indemnification. After a jury found Geiger Construction negligent, the Supreme Court denied Geiger Construction's motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed these judgments, concluding that there was no rational basis for the jury to find Geiger Construction negligent, as 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against them. Consequently, the third-party causes of action against Geiger Construction were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawNegligenceContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of LawJury Verdict
References
7
Case No. ADJ8567530
Regular
Apr 25, 2014

DONALD WEAVER vs. NORTHRUP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS, CHARTIS FOR AIG CASUALTY COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for removal, rescinding the prior order that required the applicant to return to the original Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) for a new injury claim. This decision was based on the Board's en banc ruling in *Navarro*, which invalidated the portion of Rule 35.5(e) requiring return to the same QME for a subsequent injury claim. The case is returned to the WCJ to determine the appropriate medical specialty for a new QME evaluation. The Board will not consider arguments not raised at the trial level.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorRule 35.5(e)Subsequent Claim of InjuryInvalid RuleLabor CodeSpecialtyOrthopedic InjuryMedical Unit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lipinski v. Skinner

Plaintiff David Lipinski sought permission from the court to file a late notice of claim concerning pendent state claims, asserting violations of his constitutional and common law rights during arrest and confinement. The central issue was whether a federal court could properly entertain this motion under New York State General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). The court examined § 50-e(7), which specifies state supreme or county courts as the proper forums. It distinguished prior federal rulings, noting the 1979 amendment to § 50-e(7) clarified that the designated forum type was distinct from venue provisions. Considering judicial economy and legislative intent, the court found that the legislature intended to increase court accessibility through venue, not by expanding the types of courts that could hear such motions. Consequently, the federal court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the § 50-e(5) application and denied the plaintiff's motion without prejudice.

Federal jurisdictionState substantive lawGeneral Municipal Law § 50-eLate notice of claimFederal vs State court jurisdictionStatutory interpretationVenue disputeJudicial economyLegislative intentDistrict Court decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holtz v. E & E Drilling & Testing Co.

The Supreme Court erred in denying defendant E & E Drilling and Testing Company, Inc. (EEDT) permission to serve an amended answer. The proposed amendment sought to allege that workers' compensation benefits constitute the plaintiff's sole remedy. The appellate court ruled that leave to amend should be freely granted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Furthermore, the court identified a factual dispute regarding the decedent's employment status at the time of the accident, which means the defendant's defense cannot be deemed meritless as a matter of law. Consequently, the original order was unanimously reversed, and the defendant's motion to serve an amended answer was granted.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAmended PleadingsAffirmative DefensesEmployment StatusSole Remedy DoctrineAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLeave to AmendMaterial Issue of FactDenial of Motion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 8,666 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