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
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bryam Hills Central School District No. 1 v. State Insurance Fund

This case involves an appeal concerning the obligations of the State Insurance Fund under insurance policies. The Bryam Hills Central School District No. 1 sought a declaratory judgment to compel the State Insurance Fund to defend actions initiated by Dorothy G. Caruolo. The initial Supreme Court judgment had granted summary judgment to the school district, mandating the State Insurance Fund to provide a defense. The appellate court modified this judgment, affirming the State Insurance Fund's duty to defend the first Caruolo action due to sufficient general negligence allegations, thereby invoking policy coverage. However, the court reversed the requirement to defend two other actions seeking salary and benefits, as these claims were rooted in contract and expressly excluded by the policy, negating any duty to defend in those specific instances.

Insurance Policy ObligationsDuty to DefendDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ExclusionWorkers' Compensation ImplicationsNegligence ClaimsInsurance Coverage DisputeSupreme Court Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2001

District No. 1-PCD v. Apex Marine Ship Management Co.

This case concerns an appeal to vacate an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance filed by District No. 1-PCD, Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association (AFL-CIO) and Harry A. Kirmon. Kirmon, a discharged engineer, had his grievance dismissed by an arbitrator who found the Union failed to provide Kirmon's written statement to the Company, deeming it a procedural prerequisite. The Supreme Court upheld this dismissal. However, the appellate court reversed, ruling that the arbitrator's decision did not derive its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, which only required the statement be given to the Union. The court concluded the arbitrator exceeded his authority by basing the dismissal on procedural grounds not outlined in the CBA's limitations on his jurisdiction.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingGrievance ProcedureArbitrator JurisdictionFederal Labor LawWrongful DischargeJudicial Review of ArbitrationUnion RightsEmployment TerminationContract Interpretation
References
18
Case No. ADJ1655785
Regular
Jan 19, 2011

DANIEL L. GORDON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant sought to challenge a prior WCAB decision that rescinded a judge's award and remanded the case for apportionment under Labor Code section 4664(c)(1). The WCAB ruled that reconsideration cannot be sought for interlocutory procedural orders that do not finally determine substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the applicant's petition was dismissed as procedurally improper.

WCABADJ1655785VNO 0546104Daniel L. GordonCounty of Los AngelesPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order DismissingFindings and AwardDeputy SheriffCardiovascular system
References
4
Case No. ADJ6849643
Regular
May 20, 2013

CHARLES MALINOWSKI vs. HSM ELECTRONIC PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., SPECIALTY RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order setting the case for trial and closing discovery, as such procedural orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion, finding the defendant's petition frivolous and indicative of bad faith tactics intended to delay proceedings. Consequently, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction the defendant and its counsel jointly and severally, up to $1,500, for their improper procedural filing. The matter will proceed with trial pending the resolution of the sanctions issue.

RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalSanctionBad FaithFrivolousLabor Code Section 5813Title 8 Section 10561Interlocutory OrderVocational Rehabilitation Expert
References
9
Case No. ANA 0366568
Regular
Aug 21, 2007

STACY MACK vs. CAREER STRATEGIES TEMP., INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE, SUN AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, TELEFLORA, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, remanding the case to determine if the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) policy for Sun America constitutes "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9). This determination is crucial for assessing the liability of the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), which seeks to avoid coverage by arguing the SCIF policy is available. The WCAB requires further proceedings to fully develop the record regarding the intent and applicability of the SCIF policy for special employees.

CIGAcovered claimother insurancegeneral employerspecial employerSuperior National Insurance CompanyState Compensation Insurance FundInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)Insurance Code section 11663joint and several liability
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03130 [238 AD3d 589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Empanada Fresca LLC v. 1 BK St. Corp.

Empanada Fresca LLC (tenant) and Jose Rodriguez (guarantor) appealed a Supreme Court order regarding their lease dispute with 1 BK Street Corp. (landlord), which involved claims of fraud, breach of lease, and a "good guy" guaranty. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the tenant's claims for fraudulent inducement, rescission, promissory estoppel, and breach of implied covenant, deeming them duplicative or inapplicable. However, the court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the guarantor, Jose Rodriguez, thereby dismissing the landlord's counterclaim for breach of guaranty. This modification was based on the finding that the guarantor had substantially complied with the terms of the "good guy" guaranty, despite a three-day short notice to vacate, as the landlord suffered no prejudice. Additionally, the Appellate Division upheld the tenant's right to amend its complaint to seek consequential damages, citing public policy against parties avoiding liability for gross negligence.

Contract LawCommercial LeaseFraudulent InducementBreach of LeaseGood Guy GuarantySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRent AbatementPre-Existing ConditionsGas Service Interruption
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Derrickmen & Riggers Assoc. Local Union No. 197 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Local No. 1 Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman

This action was initiated by Local 197 against Local 1, alleging breach of contract based on violations of the Constitutions of the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (BCTC), as well as their respective jurisdictional dispute resolution plans. Local 197 sought partial summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn. Conversely, Local 1 sought summary judgment to dismiss the entire suit, arguing that Local 197 lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that the state law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that Local 197 was an incidental, not intended, beneficiary of the BCTD Constitution and National Plan, and that Local 1's disaffiliation from the BCTC removed its obligations to the New York Plan. Additionally, the court ruled that Local 197's state law claims for tortious interference were preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

Labor LawJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party BeneficiaryNLRA PreemptionUnion AffiliationCollective BargainingAFL-CIO ConstitutionLocal Union Rights
References
26
Case No. VNO 0457283
Regular
Aug 28, 2007

GREGORY BRIDGES vs. FILM PAYMENT SERVICES, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, by BROADSPIRE, KELLEY PRODUCTIONS, INC., NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION now FIREMAN'S FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a previous award and returned the case for further proceedings to determine if the special employer's insurer, National Surety Corporation, provides "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9). The WCAB ruled that a prior appellate decision did not collaterally estop CIGA from asserting this issue and found that the National Surety Corporation policy may constitute such "other insurance." The case now requires a determination on the merits of whether National Surety Corporation's policy is available to applicant, impacting CIGA's liability.

CIGALegion Insurance CompanyNational Surety CorporationFireman's Fundgeneral employerspecial employerjointly and severally liableother insuranceInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)collateral estoppel
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 11,376 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