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

Transcontinental Insurance v. State Insurance Fund

This case involves a dispute between two insurers, Transcontinental Insurance Company (plaintiff) and State Insurance Fund (defendant), regarding their contribution to the defense and settlement of an underlying personal injury action. Transcontinental, which insured the contractor Master, sought a declaration that State Insurance Fund, Master's workers' compensation insurer, should contribute as a co-insurer for expenses incurred defending and settling the action on behalf of NYPA. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, applying the antisubrogation rule. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, vacating the dismissal but affirming the application of the antisubrogation rule, declaring that State Insurance Fund is not obligated to reimburse Transcontinental for the expenses.

Insurance DisputeAntisubrogation RuleDeclaratory JudgmentCommercial General Liability PolicyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceIndemnificationCo-insurancePersonal Injury ActionAppellate ReviewContractual Obligation
References
5
Case No. ADJ656416 (RIV 0030336)
Regular
Oct 18, 2011

JOHN CAVEY vs. SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, CNA CLAIMPLUS, INC., PIPE JACKING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CAST & CREW PAYROLL, CNA CLAIMPLUS, PARAMOUNT PICTURES, ST PAUL/TRAVELERS INSURANCE, et al.

This case concerns reconsideration petitions filed by Paramount Pictures and State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) regarding an arbitrator's award of the date of injury for workers' compensation purposes. Paramount's petition is dismissed as untimely filed. SCIF's petition, arguing against the September 1999 last date of injurious exposure based on medical evidence, is denied for the reasons stated in the arbitrator's report. The Board adopted the arbitrator's findings and incorporated the report into their decision.

Labor Code section 5412Labor Code $\S$5500.5date of injuryinjurious exposureapportionmentcontributionpetition for reconsiderationuntimely petitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAward of Arbitrator
References
2
Case No. ADJ8691809
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

NICOLE BORAGNO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY CHOWCHILLA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves Nicole Boragno's workers' compensation claim against the State of California, CDCR. The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying the admission of a supplemental medical report. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the supplemental report inadmissible. This was because discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference, and the defendant failed to establish good cause for introducing evidence not previously disclosed. The WCJ noted there was no change in circumstances to warrant the late-filed report, distinguishing it from precedent that allows such reports.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationmandatory settlement conferencediscovery closureLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)good causesupplemental reportPQMEapportionmenttimeliness
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2004

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Branicki

The State Insurance Fund sued Bernard Branicki for breach of contract to recover $17,521.87 in unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. Branicki contended he was self-employed and not subject to the Workers' Compensation Law, and that the plaintiff failed to conduct requested audits. The court found a valid contract and a breach by Branicki for non-payment. However, the court ruled against the plaintiff's claim for estimated premiums due to its failure to demand access to defendant's records for an audit. Ultimately, the court calculated the actual premiums due and granted judgment to the State Insurance Fund for $348.31, plus interest and collection fees.

Breach of ContractUnpaid Insurance PremiumsInsurance Policy AuditSelf-Employment StatusContractual ObligationsDamages CalculationPolicy CancellationJudicial ReviewEstimated Premiums DisputeInsurance Law
References
11
Case No. OAK 328137
Regular
Aug 20, 2007

AARON DE MATTEO vs. JOINERY STRUCTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the liability of Joinery Structures and State Compensation Insurance Fund for the applicant's vocational expert costs. The Board affirmed that vocational expert fees are recoverable expenses under Labor Code Section 5811, as such testimony is relevant to determining permanent disability and aligns with the mandate for expeditious and inexpensive resolution. The denial also addressed the defendants' arguments regarding the timing of the expert's report and its compliance with specific Labor Code sections, finding them unpersuasive.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsiderationApplicantDefendantJOINERY STRUCTURESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDWCJvocational expertloss of future earning capacity1997 Guidelines
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1999

State Insurance Fund v. Zurich-American Insurance Companies

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied Zurich's motion for summary judgment and granted the State Insurance Fund's (SIF) cross-motion, awarding SIF one-half of a settlement and its net Workers' Compensation lien. This decision was unanimously reversed on appeal. The appellate court found that the motion court erred in its determination, stating that a stipulation entered in open court clearly indicated SIF had waived its workers' compensation lien in full, with no evidence supporting a limited waiver. Zurich and SIF had previously agreed to share their insured's settlement liability, and Zurich's payment of $95,000 fulfilled its financial obligation under the stipulation. Since SIF was the sole Workers' Compensation insurance carrier, Zurich had no further obligation or interest in the lien.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LienStipulationWaiverInsurance LiabilitySettlement AgreementAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationInsurance Carrier
References
0
Case No. OAK 293546, OAK 295646 OAK 295645, OAK 322365
Regular
Aug 22, 2008

LAURA BERRY vs. GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., AIG CLAIM SERVICES, ROSSMOOR MEDICAL CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Board denied American Home Assurance Co.'s petition and granted State Compensation Insurance Fund's petition for reconsideration, affirming the June 5, 2008 Findings, Award and Order, except for the employer's identity, which was deferred for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative TraumaTemporary DisabilityPermanent and StationaryBanker for AwardEmployer IdentificationSeparate EntitiesDevelop the RecordFindings Award and Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Insurance v. State

Thomas Murray, an executive officer and co-owner of T & T Murray Company, Inc., sustained severe injuries while working, having previously elected to be excluded from Workers’ Compensation coverage under Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (6). Following a successful lawsuit against the general contractor, Concept Construction Corp., and subsequent indemnification from T & T, Concept's liability carrier, Continental Insurance Company, sought coverage from T & T's insurer, State Insurance Fund. The State Fund denied the claim, asserting the exclusion applied to both Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability coverage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling that the two types of coverage are inextricably linked, and the election to exclude executive officers from Workers’ Compensation coverage also eliminates Employers’ Liability coverage for injuries to those officers.

Workers' Compensation Law § 54(6)Employers' Liability CoverageExecutive Officer ExclusionCorporate OfficersStock OwnershipInsurance Policy InterpretationThird-Party IndemnificationSubrogation ClaimStatutory InterpretationNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. ADJ8181938; ADJ8702275
Regular
Apr 10, 2023

KAREN MILLER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, VENTURA YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued against the statutory 15% increase, the method of evaluating spine impairment, and the inclusion of a sleep disorder. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no error in the application of the 15% increase or the evaluation of the spine impairment using the ROM method as deemed appropriate by the agreed medical examiner. Furthermore, the Board upheld the finding of an industrially caused sleep disorder, noting that formal sleep studies are not always required for diagnosis and that the physician's rating falls within the AMA Guides.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedVentura Youth Correctional FacilityAdjudication NumbersOccupational Group 214Cervical SpineLumbar SpineBilateral ShouldersGastrointestinal System
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2002

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Brooklyn Barber Equipment Co.

This case addresses an action brought by the State Insurance Fund (SIF) to collect unpaid premiums and interest on a workers' compensation insurance policy from the defendants. The central legal issue revolves around the interpretation of State Finance Law § 18 (10), specifically whether SIF must conduct a public hardship review before initiating a debt collection lawsuit. The motion court initially considered this review a condition precedent but later modified its stance, affirming that a review is required at some point, though not necessarily as a condition precedent. The dissenting opinion argues that the statute's intent is to facilitate revenue generation through debt collection, not to impose a mandatory, lengthy hardship review in every instance. It concludes that a hardship review is only warranted under specific conditions when a debtor requests it and demonstrates fiscal hardship.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceUnpaid PremiumsState Finance LawDebt CollectionHardship ReviewSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentFiscal ViabilityCondition Precedent
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 29,850 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