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. ADJ10132416
Regular
Sep 04, 2019

ARMANDO SALAZAR vs. DOTY BROS. EQUIPMENT COMPANY, AIG CLAIMS for NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

This case concerns the determination of the cumulative trauma injury date and the corresponding liability period for a workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board clarified that the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is July 30, 2005, through September 30, 2015, based on when the applicant should have reasonably recognized his disability as work-related, evidenced by his attorney filing a claim. Crucially, the Board distinguished this from the liability period under Labor Code section 5500.5, which was established as July 30, 2014, through July 30, 2015, the applicant's last day of work. This revised liability period confirmed that Starr Indemnity & Liability Company was within coverage for the claim.

Labor Code Section 5412Labor Code Section 5500.5cumulative trauma perioddate of injuryinjurious exposureknowledge of disabilityApplication for Adjudication of Claimpetition to dismisscoverageamended findings
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham & Straus, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 30

Abraham & Straus (A&S) sought a preliminary injunction against defendant Local 30 to stop picketing and job actions concerning engineer and mechanic staffing at a new Roosevelt Field store. A&S argued these actions violated their collective bargaining agreement's no-strike and arbitration clauses. Local 30 contended the dispute was purely representational, not arbitrable, and that Boys Markets relief did not apply to picketing alone. The court found the dispute arbitrable due to the broad arbitration clause and the union's previous intent to arbitrate. It also determined that Boys Markets injunctions could cover picketing, especially when it caused work stoppages, ultimately granting A&S's request and ordering arbitration.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseNo-Strike ClausePicketingWork StoppageBoys Markets ExceptionLabor Management Relations ActFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07024
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

Matter of Piorkowski v. Pat Forsha Truck & Auto

Claimant David J. Piorkowski suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2006 during his employment with Pat Forsha Truck & Auto, leading to surgeries and ongoing symptoms. In 2014, he filed a separate claim, alleging a new left knee injury while working for Wal-Mart, stemming from two incidents in September 2014 where he assisted customers. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the 2014 incidents constituted an exacerbation of his preexisting condition rather than a new injury, disallowing the claim. Pat Forsha Truck & Auto appealed the Board's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, citing the Board's expertise in distinguishing between new injuries and exacerbations, and its authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the September 2014 incidents did not represent new injuries.

Workers' Compensation Law JudgePreexisting ConditionCausation DisputeMedical EvidenceAppellate Division Third DepartmentBoard Decision AffirmedIndustrial AccidentOrthopedic SurgeryIndependent Medical ExaminationWork-Related Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ1988743 (OAK 0328856)
Regular
Aug 10, 2012

JAMES KENDALL (Deceased) vs. OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC., AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE CO., BROADSPIRE, A CRAWFORD CO., TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF CONNECTICUT, LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY CO.

This case concerns the determination of liability for a deceased worker's cumulative trauma injury, specifically carpal tunnel syndrome. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the period of injurious exposure. The Board found that the applicant's date of injury, based on the onset of temporary disability, was September 30, 2004. Therefore, the statutory period of liability under Labor Code § 5500.5 was established as September 30, 2003, through September 29, 2004, the employee's last day of work. This amendment impacts the contribution between insurers APIC and Travelers.

Cumulative traumaLabor Code section 5500.5Labor Code section 5412Period of liabilityCarpal tunnel syndromeTemporary disabilityPermanent disabilityDate of injuryInjurious exposureReconsideration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2002

This Discovery Order, arising from consolidated actions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, addresses disputes between the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs and defendant National Commercial Bank (NCB). Magistrate Judge Maas ruled on the scope of limited jurisdictional discovery concerning NCB's contacts with the United States, an alleged 1998 audit, and customer bank records. The court granted discovery for a six-year period preceding the lawsuits regarding NCB's U.S. presence and ordered NCB to investigate and produce any existing 1998 audit. However, requests for underlying audit documents and specific customer bank records tied to Al Qaeda were denied due to an insufficient prima facie showing of conspiracy.

Discovery DisputeJurisdictional DiscoveryPersonal JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAMinimum ContactsConspiracy TheorySeptember 11 AttacksNational Commercial BankSaudi Arabian Banks
References
16
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02039
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

Matter of Sanchez v. Jacobi Med. Ctr.

Claimant Rurico Sanchez was injured in a work-related accident in 2008, leading to a permanent partial disability classification. Following spinal surgeries in 2014 and 2015, the Workers' Compensation Board reclassified his disability and applied various benefit periods against his 300-week durational limit. This appeal addresses the Board's subsequent reclassification decision upon remittal from a prior Appellate Division ruling. The Court found insufficient evidence for the Board's reclassification of claimant as permanently partially disabled for the period following his March 2014 surgery (September 4, 2014 to December 10, 2015) and remitted this portion. However, it affirmed the reclassification for the period following the December 2015 surgery (September 15, 2016 to November 6, 2017). The Court also reversed the Board's reclassification of claimant from temporary total disability to permanent partial disability for periods between surgeries, citing a violation of due process for lack of notice and opportunity to be heard. The matter is remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityDurational LimitsWage Loss BenefitsReclassificationDue ProcessMedical OpinionSpinal SurgeryAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 21 MC 101, 04 Civ. 7272(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2007

In Re September 11 Property Damage

This opinion addresses the legal sufficiency of third-party actions filed by Seven World Trade Company, L.P. and Silverstein Properties, Inc. (Silverstein), owners and developers of 7 World Trade Center, seeking indemnification and contribution. Silverstein, who was both a plaintiff and defendant in various lawsuits following the September 11, 2001, destruction of 7WTC, brought claims against OEM Design and Construction Defendants, Citigroup Design and Construction Defendants, and engineers Irwin Cantor and Syska. The court granted motions to dismiss from all third-party defendants. It found OEM defendants immune under the New York State Defense Emergency Act, Citigroup defendants protected by Silverstein's prior assumption of risk, and Irwin Cantor and Syska dismissed for failure to meet heightened pleading standards for licensed design professionals.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterProperty DamageBusiness LossThird-Party LitigationIndemnificationContributionMotions to DismissSDEA ImmunityAssumption of Risk
References
24
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00744 [191 AD3d 1363]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2021

Lemiszko v. Mosovich 2014 Family Trust

Plaintiff Troy C. Lemiszko commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained after falling from a ladder on premises owned by Mosovich 2014 Family Trust. Defendant AAA Contracting, LLC appealed an order denying its pre-answer motion to dismiss Labor Law claims and the Trust's cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, rejecting AAA Contracting, LLC's collateral estoppel argument, finding that a prior workers' compensation determination did not preclude plaintiff's Labor Law recovery. The court also upheld the denial of dismissal for the contractual indemnification cross-claim due to insufficient documentary evidence.

Collateral EstoppelLabor Law ClaimsContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation BoardLadder FallPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissGeneral Contractor LiabilityUninsured Employer
References
13
Case No. ADJ7723686
Regular
Dec 19, 2014

DAVID TORRES vs. CLASSIC PARKING, INC., BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because the lien claim had been settled. The original decision being reconsidered was issued on September 30, 2014. This dismissal renders the reconsideration proceedings moot.

Petition for Reconsiderationmootlien claimsettleddismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ7723686Classic ParkingInc.Broadspire
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2014

Myiow v. City of New York

The plaintiff, an employee of Brooklyn Welding Corp., was injured at Harlem Hospital when he fell 13-14 feet from a flatbed truck while preparing steel beams for hoisting, after a piece of dunnage broke. He moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing a lack of proper safety devices. The defendants cross-moved, contending the accident was not an elevation-related hazard contemplated by the statute. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendants' cross-motion, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court found that a fall from 13-14 feet constitutes an elevation-related risk and that the provision of an inadequate safety harness established liability.

elevation-related risksummary judgmentliabilityinadequate safety devicesconstruction accidentfall from heightflatbed truckdunnageLabor Law § 240 (1)appellate division
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,745 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