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

Roberts v. New York City Office of Collective Bargaining

This case concerns an appeal regarding the New York City Fire Department's "zero tolerance" policy, which mandates automatic termination for EMS employees who fail or refuse drug tests. Unions representing these employees argued that this policy should be subject to mandatory collective bargaining. The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining and a lower court ruled against the unions, asserting that the policy falls under management's disciplinary rights. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that disciplinary actions for EMS personnel are the sole province of the Fire Commissioner under the New York City Charter, and that deterring illegal drug use by EMS workers is critical to public safety and the FDNY's core mission.

Public SafetyEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Drug Testing PolicyZero ToleranceCollective BargainingMandatory BargainingNew York City Fire Department (FDNY)Fire CommissionerDisciplinary AuthorityNew York City Charter
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01874
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Cherrington v. New York City Tr. Auth.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order that denied a petition to vacate an arbitration award, which had upheld a 25-day suspension for petitioner Norris Cherrington. The court found the arbitrator's decision was not irrational, as it was justified by Cherrington's violation of a zero-tolerance policy for workplace violence. Petitioners' argument regarding the lack of explanation for a retreat path was deemed beyond judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, the award did not violate public policy, as disciplining an employee for workplace violence is permissible, and no explicit conflict with anti-discrimination laws was found, given the absence of disparate treatment claims for non-Black employees. The arbitrator had also declined the respondent's request to dismiss Cherrington.

Arbitration AwardWorkplace ViolenceEmployee DisciplinePublic PolicyJudicial ScrutinyAppellate ReviewSuspensionZero-Tolerance PolicyDiscrimination ClaimNew York City Transit Authority
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2007

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. St. Barnabas Community Enterprises, Inc.

This case concerns the arbitrability of disputes between an unnamed petitioner and its insured, St. Barnabas, over retrospective premiums and credits from workers' compensation policies covering 1995-1998 and 2000-2001. The Supreme Court's order, which compelled arbitration and denied St. Barnabas's cross-motion to dismiss, was modified. The appellate court affirmed arbitration for the 1995-1998 policies due to explicit arbitration clauses. However, arbitration for the 2000-2001 policies was stayed as they lacked such clauses and provided for litigation. Claims of fraudulent inducement related to the earlier policies were referred to arbitrators, as they did not specifically challenge the arbitration agreement itself.

ArbitrationWorkers' Compensation PoliciesRetrospective PremiumsInsurance DisputesPolicy InterpretationFraudulent InducementContract LawNew York CourtsAppellate DecisionJurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catania v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

This case involves a submitted controversy under sections 546 to 548 of the Civil Practice Act, concerning whether a liability policy issued to John Schiro extends coverage to the plaintiff for injuries sustained by Schiro's wife. Schiro's wife alleged negligence against her spouse in the operation of his vehicle during his employment with the plaintiff. The court analyzed Insurance Law section 167 (subd. 3), which states that policies do not cover liability for spousal injuries unless expressly provided. Citing Morgan v. Greater New York Taxpayers Mut. Ins. Assn., the court treated the policy as if issued to the plaintiff alone, determining that Schiro's wife is not the plaintiff's spouse, thus making section 167 (subd. 3) inapplicable. The decision, supported by Manhattan Cas. Co. v. Cholakis, concluded that the insurer is liable. Therefore, judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to defend the pending negligence action and pay any judgment up to the policy limits.

Liability PolicyInsurance CoverageSpousal LiabilityCivil Practice ActInsurance LawNegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentAutomobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityInterspousal Immunity
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trojcak v. Valiant Millwrighting & Warehousing, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the proper cancellation of an employer's workers' compensation policy. A claimant was injured in September 1995, leading to a dispute when the carrier claimed the policy was canceled in June 1995 due to nonpayment. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled the policy was improperly canceled, citing Banking Law § 576 and estoppel. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the cancellation adhered to Banking Law § 576's notice requirements. This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the statutory notice provisions were met and that the finance agency and carrier were not estopped from canceling the policy despite prior acceptance of late payments.

Workers' Compensation Policy CancellationBanking Law § 576Estoppel DoctrineNotice RequirementsLate PaymentsInsurance Coverage DisputePolicy DefaultAppellate ReviewStatutory CompliancePremium Finance Agreement
References
7
Case No. ADJ10950502
Regular
Mar 10, 2020

ROBERT HANSEN (Deceased), DIANA HANSEN, MAYA HANSEN, CALLIE HANSEN, ROBERT GENE REINHARDT, Guardian Ad Litem For MATTHEW HANSEN and TAYLOR HANSEN vs. FREIGHT HANDLERS, LLC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the deceased sustained a compensable industrial injury causing death. The Board agreed with the WCJ that the defendant failed to prove the decedent's intoxication proximately caused the injury, despite acknowledging the decedent was intoxicated. Furthermore, the Board found substantial evidence supported the WCJ's conclusion that the death was not a suicide and that the decedent remained within the course of employment under the commercial traveler rule, even with his intoxication and the employer's zero-tolerance policy.

Compensable Industrial InjurySuicide DefenseIntoxication DefenseCourse of EmploymentCommercial Traveler RuleProximate CauseBurden of ProofSubstantial Evidence RuleCredibility DeterminationsZero Tolerance Policy
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2005

Warren v. International Business MacHines Corp.

Michael Warren, a U.S. Army Reserve member, sued IBM for employment discrimination after his termination shortly after returning from a training mission. He alleged discrimination based on his military service, violating USERRA and New York Military Law. IBM moved for summary judgment, asserting Warren was fired for making a death threat and violating a zero-tolerance policy. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine IBM's stated reason was pretextual and that Warren's reservist status was a motivating factor in his dismissal. Consequently, the court denied IBM's motion for summary judgment on the core discrimination claims (§ 4311 and § 317 ¶ 4) but granted it for the reemployment claims (§ 4312 and § 317 ¶ 1) and the § 4316 claim, interpreting "period of service" as consecutive days.

Employment DiscriminationMilitary Service DiscriminationUSERRANew York Military LawSummary JudgmentPretextReservist RightsWrongful TerminationStatutory InterpretationBurden of Proof
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fagnani v. American Home Assurance Co.

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance policy's exclusionary clause. Plaintiffs' decedents, Stephen Fagnani and Brandon Young, were killed in a helicopter crash while working for ODECO. The defendant insurance carrier disclaimed liability, citing a policy exclusion for 'Flying in any Rotocraft being used for transportation of Oil Rig Crews to and from such rigs.' Special Term granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, interpreting ambiguities against the insurer. Justice Titone, however, dissents, arguing that both sides presented extrinsic evidence, which creates a question of fact regarding the meaning of 'oil rig' that necessitates a trial. He recommends reversing the judgment, vacating the order, and remitting the matter for trial.

Insurance PolicyExclusionary ClauseSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceAmbiguityHelicopter CrashAccidental DeathOil Rig CrewsAppellate Dissent
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co.

Anthony Ramirez was killed in an accident while working for Leisure Pool Service, leading his estate and property owner Samuel Hillman to sue his employers for wrongful death. Hillman subsequently cross-claimed against the employers for indemnification and contribution. USF&G, the employers' insurer, disclaimed coverage for Hillman's cross-claim based on an employee bodily injury exclusion in their general liability policy. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for USF&G, upholding the exclusion. On appeal, the court dismissed Ramirez's appeal, modified Hillman's appeal by explicitly declaring the exclusion applied, and affirmed the judgment, finding the policy's exclusionary language clear and unambiguous regarding employee injuries and related contribution claims.

Insurance policyDeclaratory judgmentSummary judgmentEmployee exclusionBodily injuryContributionIndemnificationAppellate reviewPolicy interpretationAmbiguity
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. McDonald

This declaratory judgment action involves American Home Assurance Company seeking to limit its liability under professional liability policies issued to social workers Rory M. McDonald and Helene Ina Anisfeld, who are defendants in an underlying malpractice action brought by Randy Kamhi. Kamhi alleges sexual misconduct and professional negligence against McDonald, and vicarious liability and direct negligence against Anisfeld as McDonald's partner. American Home sought summary judgment to limit indemnification to $25,000 for sexual misconduct claims and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment in part, affirming the $25,000 limit for McDonald's sexual misconduct and for punitive damages for both McDonald and Anisfeld. However, the court denied the request to terminate American Home's duty to defend McDonald upon exhausting the $25,000 limit and granted Kamhi's cross-motion to stay further summary judgment applications until discovery in the underlying action is complete. Crucially, the court found that extending the sexual misconduct coverage limit to non-sexual malpractice claims violates New York public policy.

Professional Liability InsuranceSexual MisconductInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic Policy ArgumentTherapist MalpracticeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyUnconscionability Claim
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 1,533 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