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. ADJ7987695 ADJ7987686
Regular
May 08, 2014

VANESSA BRUCE vs. VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM/PHYSICIANS FOR HEALTHY HOSPITALS; CRUM & FORSTER AND TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant, a licensed vocational nurse, sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained when she fell asleep driving home after working three extra hours off the clock due to a coworker's issue. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied her petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found the injury did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment, as the "going and coming rule" applied and neither the "special mission" nor "special risk" exceptions were met. The applicant's decision to stay late was voluntary, not at the employer's request, and falling asleep while driving is a common risk, not a special employment-related hazard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLicensed Vocational NurseSpecific InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjuryHeadachesCumulative InjurySleep DisorderGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission Exception
References
17
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05037 [163 AD3d 558]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Empire State Transp. Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Comm.

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust for judicial approval of a settlement, nunc pro tunc, against the Special Funds Conservation Committee. The underlying issue stemmed from the Trust's failure to obtain consent from the Special Funds for a claimant's personal injury settlement, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to find a waiver of reimbursement rights. After an initial denial by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division reversed and remitted, affirming the court's discretion in compelling such consent. Upon remittitur, the Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the Special Funds to provide nunc pro tunc consent. The Appellate Division affirmed this subsequent order, concluding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay was adequately explained, and no prejudice was demonstrated against the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationNunc Pro TuncSettlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeAppellate DiscretionReimbursement WaiverJudicial ReviewAppellate PracticeNassau County
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06200
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Matter of NYAHSA Servs., Inc. v. Special Funds Group

This case concerns an appeal by NYAHSA Services, Inc., the workers' compensation insurance carrier for St. Patrick's Nursing Home, from an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc. The underlying matter involved Karen DiNoia, who sustained injuries in 2001 during employment and settled a third-party personal injury action in 2005 for $400,000. Although NYAHSA consented, the Special Funds Group's consent was not obtained at the time, which is crucial for the carrier to be reimbursed from the Special Disability Fund. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing a lack of required documentation. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the decision, finding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial relief was not the petitioner's fault, and the Special Funds Group was not prejudiced, thus granting the petition.

Nunc Pro TuncPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalAppellate ReviewSpecial Disability FundInsurance Carrier ReimbursementSupreme Court DiscretionDelayPrejudiceReasonableness of Settlement
References
10
Case No. ADJ18302905
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

CHRISTIAN CHAVEZ vs. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, STARR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 15, 2025, by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the applicant, Christian Chavez, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and that this injury was not barred by the going and coming rule, based on the special risk exception. Defendant contended that there was no evidence to support the application of the special risk exception. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, applicant's answer, and the WCJ's report, ultimately denying the petition for reconsideration and concurring with the WCJ's findings regarding the special risk exception.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardChristian ChavezJetBlue Airways CorporationStarr Indemnity and Liability CompanyAdjudication Number ADJ18302905Los Angeles District OfficePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderArising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE)Going and coming rule
References
12
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02965 [138 AD3d 927]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Jardin v. A Very Special Place, Inc.

Jean-Paul Jardin, injured in a construction site fall from an unsecured ladder, sued A Very Special Place, Inc. (VSP) and Kang Suk Construction, Inc. under Labor Law § 240(1). VSP sought contractual indemnification from Kang Suk and Trinity Interior Coatings, Inc. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Jardin's summary judgment motion due to factual disputes regarding his site authorization. However, the court modified a prior order, granting VSP conditional summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Kang Suk, finding VSP free from negligence. VSP's claim against Trinity was denied as their indemnification agreement was signed after the accident and lacked retroactive intent.

Construction Site AccidentLadder SafetyLabor Law ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentThird-Party LiabilitySubcontractor AgreementsRetroactive Contract ApplicationAppellate Division ReviewPersonal Injury Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McLeod v. Ground Handling, Inc.

This case addresses whether an accident occurring on a public street, away from the immediate place of employment but near the workplace, arose out of and in the course of employment. The court examined the 'gray area' where risks of street travel merge with employment risks, emphasizing the need for a special hazard at the accident point and a close association of the access route with the premises. The Board found no special hazard on the county road, which was used by the general public and not controlled by the employer. Consequently, the accident was deemed a risk shared by the general public, not related to the claimant's employment. The decision affirming the Board's finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was upheld.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-premises AccidentSpecial Hazard RuleStreet RiskGoing and Coming RulePublic RoadAccess RouteEmployer ControlAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

Stepheny v. Brooklyn Hebrew School for Special Children

Plaintiffs Maria and Gregory Stepheny, an interracial married couple, brought employment discrimination suits against their former employer, the Brooklyn Hebrew School for Special Children. Maria alleged a racially hostile work environment, race discrimination, and retaliation, while Gregory claimed a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation, citing violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Their termination in May 2001 followed a verbal and physical altercation with a co-worker, Nekeya Black, stemming from Gregory's prior extramarital affair with Black. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that any alleged harassment was due to personal animosity from the affair, not discrimination, and that the plaintiffs' termination was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related to workplace misconduct. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that the alleged harassment was not based on race or sex, was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and the employer took reasonable remedial action. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of pretext in the termination decision.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981New York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
62
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,906 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