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. ADJ581749 (VNO 0529719)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

ARLENE HITE vs. TEPCO (STANDARD ABRASIVES, INC.), EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Clarendon National Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's contribution award. Clarendon argued it should not be liable for contribution because it was joined as a defendant over a year after the underlying cumulative trauma claim was settled. The Board denied reconsideration, finding that Clarendon received timely actual notice of Everest's contribution claim within one year of the settlement approval. Therefore, despite the delay in formal joinder, Clarendon cannot show prejudice and is liable for its share of the contribution award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ContributionLabor Code section 5500.5Cumulative traumaCompromise and releaseOrder of JoinderNunc pro tuncActual noticeTimely noticePrejudice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2012

Claim of Smith v. Oneida Ltd.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning her husband's death benefits. In 1991, the decedent sustained a compensable lung injury, leading to permanent partial disability and continuous workers' compensation benefits until his death in September 2010. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that the death was causally related to his work-related illness, awarding death benefits to the claimant. The self-insured employer and its claims administrator appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing that a compensable illness need not be the sole cause of death, only a contributing factor. Evidence included the death certificate listing sepsis and respiratory failure, and a C-64 medical report from the decedent's long-term physician stating the death was directly or indirectly caused by the work-related illness.

death benefitscausal relationshipoccupational illnessrespiratory failuresepsispermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation Board appealmedical report evidencecontributing factor
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2011

Claim of Roberts v. Waldbaum's

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning the death of a grocery store employee. The decedent, while acting as store manager on a busy Super Bowl Sunday, collapsed and died from a myocardial infarction. His claimant sought workers’ compensation death benefits, which were initially denied but later granted by the Board, finding a causal relationship to employment. The employer and its claims administrator appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that substantial medical evidence supported the finding that work-related stress and an altercation contributed to the decedent's death.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipMyocardial InfarctionEmployment StressWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sciascia v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

The Trustees of the Special and Superior Officers Benevolent Association Defined Contribution Fund (Plaintiffs) sued Rochdale Village, Inc. (Defendant) for allegedly failing to make required contributions to the fund. The Plaintiffs' claims were brought under Section 301 of the LMRA and Sections 515 and 502(a)(3) of ERISA. The Defendant argued that its obligation was contingent on an unsatisfied condition precedent and that the contributions would be illegal under LMRA Section 302. The Court found the Memorandum of Agreement created an unambiguous obligation for the Defendant to contribute, and the SSOBA Fund did not violate LMRA Section 302. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the Defendant's motion.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDefined Contribution PlanPension FundSummary JudgmentCondition PrecedentMultiemployer PlanTrust FundEmployer Contributions
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1992

Baca v. HRH Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dismissing a third-party plaintiff's claim for contribution. The court determined that a pre-verdict "high-low" agreement between the plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff general contractor constituted a release under General Obligations Law § 15-108, thereby barring the contribution claim against the third-party defendant. It was also noted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal the dismissal of the third-party claim. Furthermore, the court found that the third-party plaintiff's purported assignment of its contribution claim to the plaintiff was void, as no claim to assign existed given that its liability was limited to less than its equitable share by the settlement. The court also questioned whether such an assignment could circumvent the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions.

High-low agreementContribution claimGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108ReleaseCPLR 5511Standing to appealWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivityEquitable shareAssignment of claimThird-party practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hercules v. United Artists Communications, Inc.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 20, 1988, which ruled that the claimant did not sustain a causally related disability. The Board had found the claimant's initial claim for a right knee injury, sustained in September 1982, barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 due to late filing in November 1984. Regarding a second claim for injuries sustained on October 11, 1983, the Board determined only the right shoulder injury was causally related to the work accident, denying a causally related disability for other injuries. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, rejecting the claimant's arguments that the Board's findings lacked substantial evidence, failed to consider all relevant evidence, or erred in denying requests for reopening and reconsideration. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and its discretionary denials were not arbitrary or capricious.

Workers' CompensationAppealDisabilityCausal RelationshipStatute of LimitationsEvidenceCredibilityJudicial DiscretionKnee InjuryShoulder Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2000

Claim of Moreines v. Lawrence Nursing Care Center

Claimant, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) by 1988, ceased employment in March 1995 due to her work environment exacerbating her condition. She filed a workers' compensation claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board initially ruled against a causal relationship between her work and MS exacerbation. Following an appeal, the Board amended its decision, affirming the carrier's consultant found no causal link, whose credibility was maintained under cross-examination. The claimant appealed both decisions, arguing the consultant's report was equivocal and the Board should have accepted her expert's unequivocal testimony. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the conflict in medical opinion was within the Board's province to resolve, and the carrier's consultant provided substantial evidence for the Board's finding of no causal link.

Workers' CompensationMultiple SclerosisCausalityMedical OpinionExpert TestimonyBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewDisease ExacerbationWork EnvironmentCredibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Panagiotatos v. Eastman Kodak Co.

This is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed December 1, 1994, which ruled that the claimant had no further causally related disability subsequent to October 23, 1989. The claimant was injured in 1986 and received benefits until 1989, but sought additional compensation for persistent back pain. The Board dismissed the claim, finding insufficient credible evidence of causality. Conflicting medical testimonies from physicians Richard Dellaporta, Sewall Miller, and Harry Cole were presented. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that resolving conflicts in medical testimony is within the Board's province and that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion. The claimant's contention regarding the presumption of causal relationship under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (5) was also rejected, as countervailing substantial evidence was presented.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceAppellate ReviewPresumption of CausalityWorkers' Compensation Law § 21(5)Back Pain InjuryBoard Decision AffirmationExpert Witnesses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing its complaint for contribution and indemnification against the defendant. The defendant had employed two undocumented aliens who were injured on the plaintiff's property and received workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should negate the protections of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which typically bars third-party claims against employers unless specific exceptions apply. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the IRCA does not preempt Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and a violation of IRCA does not abrogate an employer's immunity from third-party claims for contribution and indemnification.

ContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)CPLR 3211 (a) (7)PreemptionUndocumented AliensEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ClaimsStatutory Interpretation
References
33
Case No. 05-01158
Regular Panel Decision

In Re ACE Elevator Co., Inc.

The Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Benefit Plans sought administrative priority for delinquent contributions from A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc. (ACE), based on various sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The court denied administrative priority for most claims, including those under 11 U.S.C. §§ 503(b)(1)(A), 507(a)(1), and 1113(f), reasoning that the contributions were for prepetition work and that section 1113(f) does not create super-priority. However, the motion was partially granted under 11 U.S.C. § 1114(e) for Welfare Plan contributions, recognizing them as retiree benefits despite their prepetition nature, but requiring further information on the exact allocation to retirees. Claims for interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees were denied priority, as was ACE's request for costs. This decision underscores the careful interpretation of priority schemes within bankruptcy law.

Bankruptcy LawAdministrative PriorityEmployee BenefitsPension PlansWelfare PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementsDebtor-in-PossessionRetiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection ActPrepetition ClaimsPostpetition Claims
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,305 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