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
Apr 15, 1983

American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. v. North River Insurance

Vincent Yeager, an employee of American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. (American), was injured during employment, leading to a lawsuit against a machine manufacturer, who then brought a third-party action against American for indemnification. American was covered by both a workers’ compensation policy from the State Insurance Fund and a general liability policy from North River Insurance Co. North River disclaimed liability, citing exclusions for workers’ compensation obligations and bodily injury to employees. American then initiated a fourth-party action against North River for contribution. The Supreme Court initially denied American's summary judgment motion and granted North River's cross-motion to dismiss, with leave to replead for indemnification. This court reversed, holding that North River's exclusions do not insulate it from American’s claims because the employer's liability to a third-party tort-feasor for an employee's injury arises from equitable apportionment, not directly from workers' compensation law, thus granting American's motion for summary judgment and denying North River's cross-motion.

Insurance coverage disputeGeneral liability policyWorkers' compensation exclusionContribution between tort-feasorsIndemnificationSummary judgmentFourth-party actionDole-Dow doctrineEquitable apportionmentEmployer liability
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00844 [224 AD3d 1079]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Cross v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

Brenda Cross, the claimant, established a workers' compensation claim for knee and ankle injuries from a 2020 work accident. The employer's carrier required her to use contracted providers for diagnostic testing. After an approved MRI for her right ankle was performed by a non-contracted provider, the carrier objected to payment. The WCLJ and Workers' Compensation Board sided with the carrier but found claimant not responsible for the bill. Cross appealed, but the Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the appeal, ruling that Cross lacked standing as she was not aggrieved, since she was not responsible for the medical bill and any dispute over reimbursement rates was between the provider and the carrier.

Workers' Compensation ClaimMedical Bill DisputeDiagnostic TestingContracted ProvidersStanding (Law)Aggrieved PartyAppeal DismissedWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate DivisionMedical Reimbursement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dorato v. Blue Cross of Western New York, Inc.

George Dorato (plaintiff) sued Blue Cross of Western New York (defendant), also known as HealthNow, Inc., doing business as Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Western New York, after his health insurance benefits for a herniated disk were denied. Dorato's workers' compensation claim, which alleged a work-related injury, resulted in a $80,000 Section 32 settlement agreement, although his claim was officially 'disallowed' by the Workers' Compensation Board. HealthNow denied benefits citing a contract exclusion for injuries where payment is available under Workers' Compensation Law, arguing the settlement constituted such payment. Dorato moved for summary judgment, seeking a de novo review and asserting collateral estoppel, and also moved to amend his complaint to recharacterize his claims under ERISA. The court applied an 'arbitrary and capricious' standard of review to HealthNow's decision, noting the contract's discretionary authority. The court found that collateral estoppel did not apply due to lack of identical issues and HealthNow's inability to participate in the WCB proceedings. Ultimately, the court granted HealthNow's motion for summary judgment, ruling that their interpretation of the contract's exclusion was rational and not arbitrary or capricious. Dorato's motions were consequently denied as futile.

ERISAWorkers' CompensationHealth InsuranceSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewBenefit DenialContract ExclusionEmployee Welfare Benefit Plan
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Christiansen v. Bonacio Construction, Inc.

Plaintiff, a mason tender, sustained injuries when a scaffold frame fell and struck him on the head and neck while working on a condominium building. He initiated a personal injury lawsuit, alleging claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), alongside a common-law negligence claim, against the general contractor, Bonacio Construction, Inc., and the building owner, 262 Broadway, LLC. The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, leading to cross-appeals from both parties. The appellate court ruled that the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim should be dismissed as the falling object did not present a 'physically significant elevation differential.' However, it reversed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim due to questions of fact regarding Industrial Code applicability and reversed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Bonacio Construction, Inc., citing its general authority over the site and potential knowledge of the hazardous condition. The cross-appeals from the order denying reargument were dismissed.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawScaffold SafetyElevation RisksWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityIndustrial Code Violation
References
22
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. CV-23-0992
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda Cross

Claimant Brenda Cross appealed a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the payment of medical bills for diagnostic testing. The employer's carrier objected to the payment because the claimant did not use a contracted provider for an MRI. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board ruled in favor of the carrier, finding the claimant not responsible for the bill. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, concluding that the claimant lacked standing as she was not aggrieved by the decision, given she was not responsible for the medical expenses.

Medical Bills DisputeDiagnostic Testing ReimbursementLack of StandingAggrieved Party DoctrineWorkers' Compensation Carrier ResponsibilityAppellate DismissalOut-of-Network ServicesRight Knee InjuryConsequential InjuryWCLJ Decision Affirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pisciotta v. St. John's Hospital

The plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) for personal injuries. Defendants St. John's Hospital, Catholic Medical Center, and Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp. cross-appealed the denial of their respective cross-motions for summary judgment, including dismissal of the complaint and all cross claims. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss the complaint, cross claims, and counterclaims against them. The court found that the plaintiffs' work did not involve an elevation-related hazard under Labor Law § 240(1), nor construction or demolition work under § 241-a. Furthermore, the Industrial Code provision relied upon for Labor Law § 241(6) was inapplicable, and there was no evidence of supervision or notice for a claim under Labor Law § 200.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppealCross-AppealConstruction AccidentElevation HazardIndustrial CodeNegligenceIndemnity
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.)

Appellant Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania (BCWP) appealed a Bankruptcy Court decision that denied its request for relief from an automatic stay in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of LTV Steel Company, Inc. BCWP, an insurance provider for LTV Steel's former constituent companies (J&L and Republic), sought to set off a $2.88 million refund it owed LTV/J&L against over $3 million in unreimbursed claims it paid as a participant in a national syndication arrangement for LTV/Republic. The Bankruptcy Court found no mutuality between BCWP and LTV Steel to permit the set-off under 11 U.S.C. § 553(a). BCWP argued for third-party beneficiary status and equitable principles. The District Court affirmed the denial, ruling that BCWP was not a third-party beneficiary and that allowing the set-off would create an inequitable preference for BCWP over other creditors.

BankruptcyAutomatic StaySet-offMutualityThird-Party BeneficiaryInsurance ContractsHealth Care BenefitsSyndication ArrangementEmployer-Employee BenefitsDebtor in Possession
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,073 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