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. ADJ8514073 (MF) ADJ9995510 ADJ2721680 (FRE 0187462)
Regular
Sep 24, 2018

VICTOR VILLA vs. JOE CARDOZA DAIRY, PAULA INS. in receivership by CIGA, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, SECURITY NATIONAL administered by RISICO, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY administered by SEDGWICK

This case concerns a dispute over the dates of a cumulative trauma injury to the applicant's left knee, following an admitted 1998 specific injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to amend the injury period. The WCAB determined the date of cumulative trauma injury under Labor Code § 5412 was September 4, 2012, the date the applicant retained counsel and gained awareness of the cumulative trauma concept. Consequently, liability for the cumulative trauma injury under Labor Code § 5500.5 was established as September 4, 2011, to September 4, 2012.

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDJOE CARDOZA DAIRYPAULA INSCIGAINSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WESTSECURITY NATIONALREPUBLIC INDEMNITYSEDGWICKVICTOR VILLASUBSEQUENT CUMULATIVE TRAUMA
References
0
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Crisman v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the distribution of death benefits. The decedent, a victim of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, was unmarried and childless. His mother, the claimant, sought to disqualify the biological father, Richard Shelp, from receiving a share of the $50,000 death benefit awarded under Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (4-b), citing his abandonment of the decedent during infancy. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the disqualification, interpreting the statute as not providing an exception for abandoning parents. Although a Surrogate’s Court later disqualified Shelp as a distributee of the decedent's estate under EPTL 4-1.4, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the plain language of Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (4-b) does not permit judicial creation of such an exclusion. The court concluded that any modification to include an abandonment clause must be made by the Legislature.

AbandonmentDeath BenefitWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationParental RightsEstate LawAppellate ReviewSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterSurviving Parents
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. 03 Civ. 0332(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

In Re September 11th Liability Insurance Coverage Cases

This opinion and order addresses two Rule 12(c) motions regarding insurance coverage for the World Trade Center properties following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sought a declaration that it is an "Additional Insured" under Zurich American Insurance Company's policies, while World Trade Center Properties LLC (WTCP) sought a declaration that Zurich is obligated to cover defense costs. The court, presided over by District Judge Hellerstein, denied both motions. It found ambiguity in the binder regarding the Port Authority's "Additional Insured" status, stating that the issue was premature without further discovery. Furthermore, the court held that New York Insurance Regulation 107 does not require rewriting Zurich's binder and policies to include defense costs, considering the unique circumstances, the sophistication of the insured, and the fact that Zurich explicitly excluded defense costs, which Silverstein (WTCP's affiliate) accepted after failing to secure conventional coverage. The court also affirmed supplemental jurisdiction over the insurance claims due to their close relation to the underlying September 11th liability cases.

Insurance CoverageSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterRule 12(c) MotionDeclaratory ReliefAdditional Insured StatusDefense CostsInsurance BinderNew York Insurance LawRegulation 107
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Access 4 All, Inc. v. Trump International Hotel & Tower Condominium

Plaintiffs Access 4 Al, Inc., a non-profit representing disabled persons, and Peter Spalluto, a quadriplegic using a wheelchair, sued Trump International Hotel and Tower Condominium under Title III of the ADA. They sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction for ADA-mandated alterations, alleging discrimination due to inaccessible facilities during Spalluto's 2004 stay. Defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The Court found Spalluto demonstrated a plausible intention to return to Trump Tower, establishing his standing. However, the Court dismissed Access 4 Al's claims, finding them identical to Spalluto's and citing prudential limitations on associational standing, while denying the defendant's motion against Spalluto.

Americans with Disabilities ActADAStandingInjunctive ReliefSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAccessibility GuidelinesADAAGQuadriplegiaWheelchair User
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howe v. Howe

This case addresses significant issues related to the equitable distribution of a marital estate in a matrimonial action. The plaintiff's New York City Fire Department disability pension and his September 11th Victim Compensation Fund award are at the core of the dispute. The court determined that the separate property interest in the plaintiff's disability pension can be calculated by the pension administrator, even without extensive trial evidence, and modified the judgment to reflect this. Additionally, the court affirmed that the economic loss component of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund award is considered 'compensation for personal injuries' under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (d) (2), classifying it as the plaintiff's separate property based on legislative intent. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for entry of an appropriate qualified domestic relations order.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertySeparate PropertyDisability PensionPersonal Injury CompensationSeptember 11th Victim Compensation FundDomestic Relations LawNew YorkMatrimonial LawPension Distribution
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. ADJ1883092 (AHM 0147002)
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

JAMES HUCKABEE vs. RALPHS/THE KROGER COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by James Huckabee. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely. Huckabee had actual notice of the September 4, 2013 Order Dismissing Lien Claim by March 4, 2014, but did not file the petition until May 5, 2014. This exceeded the 20-day jurisdictional deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration after receiving actual notice.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code section 5903Jurisdictional Time LimitActual NoticeOrder of DismissalLien ClaimDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPetition for Relief from DefaultCode of Civil Procedure section 473(b)
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,972 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