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
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2005

Claim of Cook v. Staffing

Claimant sustained back and facial injuries in a 1994 work accident, leading to a 1997 award for facial disfigurement, no lost time, and continued back treatment, then case closure. In 2000, the case reopened to address medical reports and potential benefits, but was subsequently ruled resolved and "not truly closed" by a WCLJ, preventing Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a liability shift to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. In 2004, claimant sought lost time compensation, and the Workers’ Compensation Board modified the WCLJ's decision, finding the case was indeed closed in 2000, thereby meeting the requirements for § 25-a liability to shift. The Special Fund appealed this determination, arguing the case was not truly closed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the finding of true closure in 2000 was supported by evidence showing all pending issues had been resolved and no further proceedings were contemplated at that time.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealSpecial Fund LiabilityCase Reopening CriteriaWorkers’ Compensation Law § 25-aPermanent Facial DisfigurementLost Time BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Court AffirmationDate of Case ClosureMedical Treatment Coverage
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Pavlov v. Debt Resolvers USA, Inc.

Claimant Dmitri Pavlov sued Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. after the defendant failed to return funds deposited for credit card debt resolution, alleging the defendant's services were ineffective and its fees excessive. The court determined that Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. engaged in "budget planning" as defined by New York law but was not licensed or properly incorporated as a not-for-profit entity for such activities. Consequently, the agreement between Pavlov and Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. was declared illegal and unenforceable. The court ruled in favor of Pavlov, ordering a refund of the deposited funds totaling $1,693.60. Additionally, the defendant was found to have engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349, leading to an extra $50 award for the claimant, bringing the total judgment to $1,743.60 plus interest.

Small ClaimsDebt ResolutionBudget PlanningUnlicensed ActivityConsumer ProtectionDeceptive Business PracticesContract EnforceabilityNew York LawCredit RepairDebt Settlement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Case No. UNKNOWN CASE NUMBER
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1970

Matter of Stange v. Angelica Textile Services, Inc.

This is a placeholder summary. No legal text was provided for analysis, hence specific case details, parties involved, and the judicial outcome cannot be accurately extracted. The purpose of this output is to demonstrate the JSON structure when actual data is unavailable. Therefore, all fields contain placeholder values.

References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2008

AIU Insurance v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The case involves a dispute between two insurers regarding their respective coverage obligations for a mutual insured in an underlying action following a fatal construction site accident. Plaintiff, who insured both the site owner and the subcontractor, sought reimbursement from defendant, who also insured the employer under a workers’ compensation policy, for half of a settlement paid in the underlying action. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to plaintiff, obligating defendant to reimburse plaintiff. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, vacating the judgment and granting summary judgment to defendant. The appellate court ruled that the antisubrogation rule would have compelled the dismissal of any third-party action, thereby precluding plaintiff from obtaining reimbursement from a coinsurer.

Insurance CoverageSubrogationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFatal AccidentCoinsuranceAppellate ReversalUnderlying ActionThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1986

Claim of MacMullan v. Associated Press

William Von Stein appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed May 14, 1986, which denied his application to reopen Philip MacMullan’s previously closed compensation case. The Board determined that any new claim for compensation related to MacMullan's ulcer was barred by the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. This appeal originated from a medical malpractice action in Supreme Court, where Von Stein, a coemployee and doctor, was accused of failing to inform MacMullan of an ulcer discovered during an employer-conducted medical examination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Von Stein lacked standing to reopen MacMullan’s case and that the requested declaratory ruling on the ulcer's compensability fell outside the Board's authority. Consequently, the court concluded that the judicial forum, not the Workers’ Compensation Board, was the appropriate venue for resolving the dispute concerning MacMullan's injury.

Workers' Compensation Law § 28Statute of LimitationsReopening Closed CaseMedical MalpracticeStanding to SueBoard JurisdictionDeclaratory RulingUlcer ConditionAngina PectorisCoemployee Immunity
References
2
Case No. ADJ3967841 (FRE 0242361) ADJ7480213 ADJ7713710
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

RAQUEL VASQUEZ vs. FIESTA MEXICAN MARKET, SPRINGFIELD INSURANCE

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed and a failure to demonstrate good cause for the lien claimant's non-appearance at a conference. The WCAB emphasized that lien claimants are subject to all WCAB rules, including requirements for appearance and settlement authority, even before the underlying case is resolved. The Board indicated that even if the petition were not dismissed for untimeliness, it would have been denied on the merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalTimelinessLien ClaimantWCAB RulesWCJ ReportGood CauseNon-AppearanceSettlement AuthorityNotice of Intention
References
0
Case No. ADJ10183604
Regular
Feb 13, 2019

TRACY HOVLAND vs. DISPENSING DYNAMICS INTERNATIONAL, STAFFING NETWORK LLC, AEROTEK, ALLEGIS GROUP, INC., EMPLOYCO USA, THE HARTFORD SYRACUSE, ESIS CHATSWORTH, LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING BOA RATON, SEDGWICK CIGA GLENDALE, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY ENCINO, AMTRUST CONCORD, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded prior orders denying reimbursement for CIGA and dismissal for Hartford. The WCAB clarified that CIGA, unlike other insurers, is entitled to reimbursement rather than just contribution from solvent insurers when handling claims due to insurer insolvency. The Board also found Hartford's dismissal petition premature, as the underlying workers' compensation claim still requires adjudication. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to resolve the underlying claim and related indemnity issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReimbursementPetition for ContributionCumulative Trauma PeriodJoint and Several LiabilityCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Third-Party AdministratorInsurer JoinderPetition for Dismissal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 17,402 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