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

Place v. Ryder

Claimant, who received workers' compensation benefits from a self-insured employer, settled a third-party action. A dispute arose regarding whether the employer had waived its statutory offset rights against the claimant's net recovery from the third-party action, as there was no written agreement. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, finding that the self-insured employer had reserved its offset rights. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer's attorney's correspondence provided substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that offset rights were explicitly reserved.

Workers' CompensationOffset RightsThird-Party SettlementEmployer's LienStatutory WaiverAttorney CorrespondenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardNew York
References
7
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

Claim of Graham v. Life Rollway Corp.

The claimant sustained a leg injury on the employer’s premises and filed for workers’ compensation benefits. The self-insured employer, who had paid disability benefits, controverted the claim. It was later determined that the claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation, and an award was made. A dispute arose regarding the employer's reimbursement for disability benefits paid, specifically whether it should be the full amount or less FICA taxes. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the employer was entitled to full reimbursement. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the Board's conclusion rational since the full award was effectively paid to the claimant through direct payment and FICA remittances satisfying the claimant's obligations.

Workers' CompensationFICA TaxesDisability Benefits ReimbursementEmployer ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationDue Process ClaimOverpayment RefundAppellate DecisionSocial Security Taxes
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Hills v. New York City Board of Education

The claimant suffered a work-related wrist injury and was awarded workers' compensation benefits, including a schedule loss of use payment. The self-insured employer mailed a check for $4,580.20, but the claimant asserted non-receipt and denied endorsing the cancelled check. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ordered the employer to re-issue payment and investigate. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that timely mailing constituted payment and absolved the employer of further obligation. The Appellate Division found the Board's reversal arbitrary and capricious, as it failed to provide a rationale for deviating from its own conflicting precedents regarding employer responsibility in cases of unreceived or improperly endorsed payments. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the determination that the employer was not required to issue another check, and remitted the matter for additional proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UsePayment DisputeCheck Non-receiptEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawArbitrary and CapriciousRemittal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1991

Krajas v. Chevy Pontiac Canada Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a self-insured employer's responsibility for a claim. The Board exercised its continuing jurisdiction, despite the case being previously closed. A letter from the claimant’s attorney, submitted after the closing date, was deemed a valid application for compensation, alerting the employer to ongoing proceedings. The Board concluded that this application prevented the employer from being relieved of responsibility under Workers’ Compensation Law §25-a. The application was also found to be filed within the stipulated time limits. The court affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationContinuing JurisdictionReduced Earnings AwardApplication for CompensationSelf-Insured EmployerStatutory Time LimitsBoard DecisionAppealReopened CasesClaimant Rights
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Monahan v. Remington Rand, Inc.

A self-insured employer appealed a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision granting death benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. The core issue was whether the employee's death resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The employee, an outside service man, was killed in a car accident on his way home after volunteering to repair a machine for his employer in Albany. The Board determined he remained an outside worker and that the accident was work-related. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Board's decision justified by the evidence, as the work performed was clearly for the employer's benefit.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsOutside WorkerCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewVoluntary WorkFatal AccidentBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07909 [155 AD3d 1208]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2017

NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. People Care Inc.

Plaintiff, a self-insured trust, commenced a collection action against defendant, a former member, for unpaid assessments related to workers' compensation claims. Defendant counterclaimed and filed a third-party action against Cool Insuring Agency, the trust's administrators, alleging mismanagement. During discovery, a dispute arose over a report commissioned by defendant's counsel from a consultant, which Cool and plaintiff sought to compel. Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and material prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Supreme Court partially granted the motions to compel, a decision largely affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department, with a modification regarding a specific email exchange found to be protected attorney work product.

Discovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeAttorney Work ProductMaterial Prepared for LitigationSelf-Insurance TrustWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentThird-Party ActionClaims Administration
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. People Care Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, which granted the plaintiff's motions for leave to amend complaints. The plaintiff, a group self-insured trust, initiated collection actions against former member employers, People Care Incorporated and Recco Home Care Services, Inc., for unpaid workers' compensation adjustment bills. The plaintiff sought to add its trustees as party plaintiffs and to update allegations to include subsequently accrued unpaid bills. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, clarifying that an evidentiary showing of merit is not required for leave to amend pleadings under CPLR 3025 (b) unless there is prejudice, surprise, palpable insufficiency, or patent lack of merit. The court found no such grounds for denial and also rejected the defendants' statute of limitations arguments, affirming that for contracts requiring continuing performance, each breach can restart the limitations period.

Workers' Compensation CoverageSelf-Insured TrustBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentPleading AmendmentCPLR 3025 (b)Statute of LimitationsPrejudiceAppellate ReviewSupreme Court Order
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08737
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. Recco Home Care Servs., Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Albany County. Plaintiff NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust, a self-insured trust providing workers' compensation coverage, sued defendant Recco Home Care Services, Inc. for unpaid adjustments after the defendant terminated its membership. Following an amendment to the complaint adding individual trustees as plaintiffs, the defendant asserted counterclaims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence against these trustees, which the Supreme Court dismissed as time-barred. The defendant also sought to amend its answer to include a counterclaim under General Business Law, which was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the counterclaims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and in denying the cross-motion to amend for the General Business Law claim. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing parts of the dismissal and denial, and affirmed the order as modified.

Workers' Compensation CoverageSelf-Insurance TrustFraud AllegationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyGeneral Business LawStatute of LimitationsAmended PleadingsCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Williams v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The self-insured employer appealed a decision from the Workmen’s Compensation Board that affirmed a referee's award to the claimant. The claimant, who worked putting cork fillings in shoes, injured her left ankle while washing her hands at the end of the day, when she turned to respond to a co-worker. The central legal question was whether this incident constituted an accident within the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The Board determined that the claimant's disability resulted from accidental injuries sustained in the course of her employment. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and unanimously affirmed the decision and award.

Workers' CompensationAnkle InjuryAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSelf-insured EmployerBoard DecisionAffirmationShoe FactoryHand Washing
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 19,519 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