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
Jun 30, 1997

Host Marriott Corp. v. North

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' causes of action for contractual indemnification and common-law contribution. The denial was based on a contract providing for mutual indemnification between the parties. Furthermore, the defendant had failed to inform the plaintiff of a potential Workers' Compensation defense in an underlying action. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a motion to amend the answer to assert this defense would have been untimely. It emphasized that both Federal and State practice require leave to amend pleadings to be freely given in the absence of undue delay, bad faith, or undue prejudice.

indemnificationcontributionworkers' compensation lawfederal rules of civil procedurestate practiceleave to amendmotion to dismissunderlying actionmutual indemnificationuntimely defense
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White v. County of Cortland

The case addresses whether a corrections officer must prove that job duties caused or contributed to a disability in a 'substantial degree' to qualify for General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. The petitioner, a corrections officer, suffered work-related heart problems. The County denied his claim, citing a lack of 'substantial degree' of causation. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division found this to be an error of law, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court held that section 207-c only requires a direct causal relationship, and preexisting conditions do not bar recovery if job duties were a direct cause.

Disability BenefitsCorrections OfficerHeart ConditionWork-Related InjuryCausal LinkStandard of ProofGeneral Municipal LawPreexisting ConditionAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
8
Case No. CV-23-0458
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jose Lujan-Espinzo

Claimant Jose Lujan-Espinzo fell from a ladder while intoxicated, sustaining serious injuries. The employer, Electrical Illuminations by Arnold Inc., and its carrier argued the accident was solely caused by intoxication, seeking to disallow the claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 10 (1). The Workers' Compensation Board modified a WCLJ decision, finding that other factors contributed to the fall and that intoxication was not the sole cause. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the carrier failed to rebut the presumption of compensability, citing other potential contributing factors such as working alone or misjudgment of footing.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseLadder AccidentSole Cause of InjuryPresumption of CompensabilityAppellate ReviewWitness CredibilityContributory NegligenceOccupational SafetyAlcohol Impairment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2009

Kitkas v. Windsor Place Corp.

This case involves an appeal by Boca Electric Corp., a second third-party defendant, from an order denying its motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, an employee of Boca, sustained personal injuries in an electrical explosion at a construction site. Boca argued that the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which would preclude claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against an employer. The appellate court found that Boca met its burden of proof, and the plaintiff and Windsor Place Corp., the premises owner, failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding a qualifying grave injury. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order and granted Boca's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action for contribution and common-law indemnification against it.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContributionCommon-law IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryEmployer LiabilityConstruction AccidentElectrical InjuryAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Bonilla

Claimant, a postal worker, was arrested for threatening suicide and subsequently required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by releasing his medical records to determine his fitness for duty. He refused to release these records, which prevented the completion of the psychiatric examination and ultimately led to him not being permitted to return to work. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board then disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, ruling that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. This decision was based on the premise that a claimant who fails to take a reasonably required step as a prerequisite to continued employment is deemed to have voluntarily left their job without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Voluntary separationUnemployment benefitsGood cause for leaving employmentMedical records releaseFitness for dutyPsychiatric evaluationPostal workerDisqualification from benefitsSubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ9550103, ADJ9214819, ADJ9206482, ADJ9206483, ADJ9356685
Regular
Sep 04, 2014

NATHAN JACKSON vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an applicant's psychiatric injury claim against the City of Los Angeles. The applicant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual employment events were the predominant cause of his psychiatric injury. Even if predominant cause were established, the Board found that lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions by the employer substantially contributed to the injury and barred compensation. The Board's decision was based on the reasoning in the arbitrator's report, which it adopted and incorporated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPsychiatric InjuryPredominant CauseActual Events of EmploymentLabor Code Section 3208.3Affirmative DefenseLawful Nondiscriminatory Good Faith Personnel ActionSubstantial CauseTreating Physician Report
References
2
Case No. ADJ1528752 (FRE 0238108) ADJ2715270 (FRE 0238107) ADJ4356655 (FRE 0238106)
Regular
Mar 10, 2014

JUANITA GUZMAN vs. BEST BUY, GALLAHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that the applicant's orthopedic injuries were established, resulting in a $29\%$ permanent disability rating. However, the applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence that her industrial injuries caused or contributed to her alleged cardiovascular system issues, sleep apnea, GERD, or hypertension. Specifically, the opinion of the applicant's expert, Dr. Cayton, was deemed not substantial evidence due to reliance on an inaccurate and unverified history of the applicant's weight.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings of Fact and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeBest BuyGallaher Bassett ServicesInc.Permanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuriesOrthopedics
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cramer v. BASF Wyandotte Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an occupationally related disease contributed to the decedent's death. The decedent had bronchitis, an occupational disease, and also aortic stenosis, which caused his death. The key issue was whether the bronchitis contributed to his death by preventing cardiac surgery that would have prolonged his life. Expert medical testimony indicated that the bronchitis made him ineligible for the necessary aortic valve replacement surgery. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the bronchitis prevented life-prolonging surgery and affirmed the Board's amended decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseBronchitisAortic StenosisMedical TestimonyCausationSurgical ContraindicationLife ExpectancyAppellate ReviewBoard Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 1983

Claim of Fallon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.

John Fallon filed a claim for compensation against his employer, Johns-Manville, alleging pulmonary asbestosis from 38 years of asbestos exposure. He later died of carcinoma of the liver, with asbestosis noted as a contributing cause. His widow filed for death benefits. Initially, an administrative law judge disallowed the claims, finding no total disability from asbestosis and an unrelated cause of death. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling that Fallon's disability and death were causally related to asbestosis. The employer and its insurer appealed this reversal, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support it despite conflicting medical expert testimonies.

Occupational DiseaseAsbestosisPulmonary AsbestosisCarcinoma of LiverCausally Related DeathWorkers' CompensationDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical Disagreement
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10,577 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