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

Valdivia v. Consolidated Resistance Co.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which had granted summary judgment to the defendant Consolidated Resistance Company of America, Inc., in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding claims asserted against it. It determined that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to dismiss the plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Furthermore, the court found the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims premature, given that discovery was incomplete. The case was remanded, allowing the defendant to potentially renew motions after discovery has concluded.

personal injurysummary judgmentLabor Lawnegligencediscoveryappellate reviewconstruction accidentproperty ownerpremises liabilityworkplace safety
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kowalski v. Fisher 40th & 3rd Co.

The case involves an appeal by UNESCO, Inc., a third-party defendant, against an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The lower court granted the plaintiff's motion to estop UNESCO from denying a stipulation to add its Workers' Compensation Law lien to a jury's damage award, and entered judgment against UNESCO. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order but reversed the judgment, vacated the order, and denied the plaintiff's motion. The appellate court found no evidence of a written or open-court stipulation and no reliance by the plaintiff on the alleged stipulation, thus concluding that the Supreme Court erred in applying estoppel. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationStipulationEstoppelAppealJudgment ReversalCPLRAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ActionLien
References
6
Case No. ADJ7412016
Regular
May 10, 2011

DORIS CORTES vs. BANK OF THE WEST, ESIS

This case involves an applicant who sustained bilateral wrist and elbow injuries but experienced no lost time from work. The applicant stipulated to zero permanent disability, though the WCJ ordered an Almaraz/Guzman assessment, which the defendant sought to rescind. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and will approve the stipulations unless the applicant objects within twenty days. The Board found the stipulations adequate based on the record and the applicant's continued employment.

WCABPetition for RemovalAlmaraz/Guzman assessmentStipulations with Request for Awardpermanent disability ratingobjective findings of impairmentqualified medical evaluator (QME)American Medical Association Guidesmandatory settlement conference (MSC)rescinded order
References
2
Case No. ADJ8580497
Regular
Oct 24, 2014

Anthony Broussard, Chenequa Phelps, William Ortiz vs. Neighborhood House Association; Zenith Insurance Company, Grossmont Family Medical Group; Zenith Insurance Company, Steigerwald Dougherty, Inc.; Zenith Insurance Company

In three consolidated workers' compensation cases, the Appeals Board rescinded its prior consolidation order and imposed $1,000 in sanctions against lien claimant ARS Legal and its representative. The Board found that ARS Legal improperly attempted to compel claims adjusters' appearances via notice, misinterpreting Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). The Board rejected ARS Legal's arguments regarding procedural ignorance and good faith, affirming that the representative's duty included understanding proper legal procedures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardZenith Insurance CompanyARS LegalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Quashing Notice to AppearClaims AdjusterSubpoenaWCJLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1990

Michalak v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a third-party action, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Con Edison) sought common-law and contractual indemnification from Akron Wrecking Co., Inc. (Akron), an employer whose employee, Michalak, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Con Edison. Akron, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment to dismiss Con Edison's third-party complaint. The Supreme Court initially granted Akron's motion, dismissing the complaint entirely without prejudice to contractual indemnification. On appeal, the order was modified. The Appellate Division held that Con Edison, by requiring Akron to name it as an additional insured on primary and excess liability policies, waived its right to common-law indemnification up to the aggregate limits of those policies. Consequently, Akron's motion for summary judgment was granted only to the extent of dismissing claims for common-law indemnification, with the motion otherwise denied.

IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAdditional InsuredWaiver of IndemnityThird-Party ComplaintPersonal Injury Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1999

O'Connell v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The plaintiff, a plumber's helper, was injured when a pipe fitting fell in a trench while he was working. He commenced an action against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Durr Mechanical Construction, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motions and granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified by granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his verified bill of particulars. Additionally, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. was reversed and severed, while the remainder of the order was affirmed.

Personal InjuryLabor LawTrench CollapseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAmendment of PleadingsConstruction AccidentElevation-Related HazardNon-delegable DutySubcontractor Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2011

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a conditional preclusion order issued in October 2006. The defendant's answer was deemed stricken due to their failure to comply with discovery requirements within 30 days, making the order self-executing. The court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance or a meritorious defense. The order was modified to prevent the plaintiff from litigating an accident-related disability claim subsequent to September 5, 2008, citing a preclusive Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Appellate Division panel unanimously concurred with the modified decision, affirming the striking of the defendant's answer while imposing a limitation on the plaintiff's disability claims.

Discovery SanctionsConditional Preclusion OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardAccident-related DisabilitySummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentMeritorious DefenseSelf-Executing OrderAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ1745994 (LAO 0863856)
Regular
Jul 29, 2015

VLADIMIR KIRAKOSYAN vs. QUALITY SECURITY SERVICE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant sought reconsideration of a procedural order memorializing stipulations that took an expedited hearing off calendar. The stipulations involved authorizing medical consultations, with the defendant claiming the applicant's counsel omitted a material fact. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it was not filed from a final order. Furthermore, the petition for removal was denied, as the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and a unilateral mistake is not sufficient grounds to set aside stipulations.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinutes of HearingStipulationsDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightsLiabilitiesThreshold issue
References
11
Case No. 90 Civ. 8473, 92 Civ. 3900, 92 Civ. 3901
Regular Panel Decision

Asbestos Litigation

Defendant Raymark Industries, Inc. moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer four of six consolidated asbestos actions. The plaintiffs in these actions (Greff, Moore, McPadden, Strafford, Ciletti, Conway) alleged exposure to asbestos causing diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer. Raymark based its motion on claims of insufficient service of process, ineffective amendment of complaints to include Raymark as a defendant, and the applicability of abstention doctrine due to parallel state court proceedings for Ciletti and Strafford. The court denied all aspects of Raymark's motion. It found that the plaintiffs had complied with service requirements under New York Business Corporation Law § 307 and that the amendment adding Raymark as a defendant was authorized by a standing Case Management Order for asbestos litigation, overriding the need for specific court leave. Furthermore, the court determined that the conditions for federal abstention under the Colorado River doctrine were not met, upholding the federal court's obligation to exercise its jurisdiction. The court also clarified that Raymark was indeed joined to the Greff and Moore actions through a prior consolidation order, despite Raymark's bankruptcy stay arguments.

Asbestos LitigationMultidistrict LitigationMotion to DismissService of ProcessAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel State and Federal ProceedingsJurisdiction
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Simon II Litigation

Senior District Judge Weinstein issued an order concerning the consolidation and scheduling of various class action lawsuits within the broader tobacco litigation. The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of claims and suggested advancing test cases to assess class certification viability. The order outlines specific directives for asbestos-related cases, Blue Cross cases, union health fund actions, and individual plaintiff cases, often awaiting appellate decisions or setting new pretrial hearings and class certification motions for dates in late 2001 and early 2002. This order reflects the court's tentative views on managing these complex and expensive cases.

Tobacco LitigationClass ActionConsolidationTrial ScheduleCase ManagementPretrial HearingFederal CourtsCivil ProcedureAsbestos LitigationMedical Litigation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 24,628 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