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
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
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. ADJ2346178 (VNO 0504730) MF ADJ862555 (VNO 0504735)
Regular
Jul 31, 2014

REBECCA DUARTE vs. MOTION PICTURE \& TV FUND, Permissibly Self-Insured, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns an applicant's 1990 specific industrial injury that caused temporary total disability from August 2004 to September 2010. The defendant argued that the injury could not have caused this later period of disability as the applicant had returned to work and her condition was previously deemed permanent and stationary. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, finding that the 1990 injury did contribute to the temporary disability period. The Board relied on medical opinions stating the specific injury and a later cumulative trauma both contributed to the applicant's condition. The court clarified legal precedent, holding that prior return to work or permanent and stationary declarations do not preclude liability for subsequent temporary disability if the original injury is a contributing factor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMotion Picture & TV FundZurich North AmericaSpecific Industrial InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical ExaminerCumulative TraumaTemporary Disability IndemnityApportionment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 1999

Jehle v. Adams Hotel Associates

Lawrence Jehle, an air conditioning serviceman employed by Honeywell, was injured after falling through a buckled floor at Taylor Business Institute's premises while performing routine maintenance. Jehle sued the building owners under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200, who then brought a third-party action against Taylor. Taylor subsequently initiated a second third-party action against Honeywell, seeking contribution or indemnification for Jehle's injuries. Honeywell moved for summary judgment to dismiss Taylor's claim, arguing that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable to routine maintenance and that it had no liability under Labor Law § 200 for a latent defect outside its control. The Supreme Court denied Honeywell's motion, but the appellate court reversed, granting Honeywell's motion and dismissing Taylor's cause of action.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Routine MaintenanceLatent DefectWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
7
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
Feb 01, 2012

Anton v. West Manor Construction Corp.

This is an appellate decision regarding an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, from February 1, 2012. The appeal concerns a reargument of summary judgment motions between West Manor Construction Corp., Bradhurst 100 Development LLC, and third-party defendant Tiegre Mechanical Corp. The appellate court modified the original order, granting Tiegre's motion to dismiss the common-law indemnification and contribution claims, as the injured plaintiff did not sustain a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court affirmed the original determination regarding contractual indemnification claims, finding that the plaintiff's alleged rule violation was not a proximate cause of the accident, which involved a cinder block dropped by an employee of Larino Masonry, Inc.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationContributionWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryProximate CauseAppellate DivisionReargumentThird-Party Claims
References
8
Case No. ADJ10186320
Regular
Feb 19, 2019

ELEUTERIO POLINA, vs. RALPHS GROCERY STORE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ralphs Grocery Store's petition for reconsideration. Defendant argued the administrative law judge erred in finding hypertension and stroke industrially caused. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, relying on the qualified medical evaluator's opinion that work stress and night shift work were contributing factors to the applicant's hypertension, which in turn led to the stroke. The Board emphasized that industrial factors only need to be a contributing cause for an injury to be compensable, and the location of symptom onset is irrelevant if the exposure occurred during employment.

HypertensionStrokeWork StressNight ShiftCumulative InjuryMedical CausationQualified Medical EvaluatorCardiologistCircadian RhythmCatecholamine
References
6
Case No. ADJ9510323
Regular
Mar 02, 2018

JONATHON SCOTT MCCARTNEY vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CONTRACTS, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves Jonathon Scott McCartney's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to actinic keratosis. The Administrative Law Judge initially denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence of industrial causation, despite McCartney's significant sun exposure as a deputy sheriff. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that McCartney's cumulative sun exposure during employment was a contributing proximate cause of his condition. Relying on *South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, the Board held that employment only needs to be a contributing factor, not the sole or primary cause, for an injury to be deemed industrial.

Actinic keratosisDeputy SheriffCumulative traumaIndustrial causationContributing proximate causeSouth Coast FramingPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorMedical causationSun exposureWork-related injury
References
9
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
Showing 1-10 of 5,343 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