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

Claim of Estate of Seitz v. Jacobson & Co.

This appeal concerns the timeliness of a supplemental application for review in a workers' compensation death benefits claim. John Seitz, a sheet metal worker, died from asbestosis-related lung cancer. His surviving spouse filed for benefits but died before causality was established, leading a WCLJ to close the case. The decedent's estate sought to reopen the case, and although a WCLJ initially ruled the claim abated upon the spouse's death, the estate filed for Board review. After being granted an extension by the Board's Office of Appeals, the estate filed a supplemental application arguing for benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (4-b). However, a Board panel subsequently deemed this application untimely and denied the claim. The Appellate Court reversed, finding the Board abused its discretion by rejecting the application as untimely after granting an extension, and also noted the Board's unexplained departure from prior precedents. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Death Benefits ClaimSupplemental Application ReviewTimeliness of FilingAbatement of Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Law Section 16 (4-b)Appellate Division ReviewAbuse of DiscretionBoard PrecedentRemand for Further ProceedingsAsbestosis-related Cancer
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Toribio

The case involves an uncontested proceeding for an administrator to resign and for a successor to be appointed. The initial administrator, Jennifer, wishes to resign from her role in the estate of her three-year-old sister, Jannin, who died tragically. She requests the court appoint their father, Domingo Toribio, as the new administrator. The primary legal question addressed by Surrogate Kristin Booth Glen is whether Mr. Toribio, who only speaks, reads, and writes in Spanish, is qualified to serve as a fiduciary under SCPA 707 (2), which allows a court discretion to declare a person unable to read and write English ineligible. The court examines the legislative intent, relevant case law, and societal changes regarding disability and non-English-speaking populations, particularly in New York City. The opinion concludes that English language competence should not be a prerequisite for fiduciary status unless no reasonable accommodations are possible, and grants the application for Jennifer's resignation and Domingo Toribio's appointment, noting he and his counsel have established satisfactory communication.

Estate AdministrationSurrogate's CourtFiduciary AppointmentLanguage BarrierEnglish ProficiencySCPA 707 (2)Multilingual SocietyJudicial DiscretionCivil RightsAccess to Justice
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estate of Bruce v. City of Middletown

This opinion addresses motions concerning a third-party complaint in an action brought by the Estate of Jimmy Lee Bruce under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort claims. The original suit alleged wrongful death and negligence against The City of Middletown, its Police Department, and two officers, following an incident where Mr. Bruce died after being placed in a chokehold by an officer. The City of Middletown filed a third-party complaint against Middletown Movie Center, Inc., seeking contribution and later moved to amend it to include indemnification. The central issue was the applicability and exercise of pendent party (now supplemental) jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for claims against the Movie Center. The court determined that § 1367 applied to the third-party complaint and that exercising supplemental jurisdiction was warranted due to the common nucleus of operative facts and considerations of judicial economy. Consequently, the court denied Movie Center's motion to dismiss and granted the City of Middletown's motion to amend its third-party complaint.

Supplemental JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionSection 1983Wrongful DeathNegligenceThird-Party ComplaintContributionIndemnificationJudicial Improvements Act of 1990Federal Courts
References
13
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02568
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2019

Peterson v. Estate of John Rozansky

Elaine M. Peterson and David Peterson (later his estate) sued the Estate of John Rozansky for personal injuries after David Peterson was struck by Rozansky's vehicle. Rozansky had previously declined deposition citing dementia and subsequently died from Alzheimer's. Plaintiffs sought Rozansky's medical records, but the Supreme Court granted a protective order and denied plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendant's answer, a decision upheld upon reargument. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, ruling that plaintiffs failed to show Rozansky's condition was 'in controversy' for CPLR 3121 (a) purposes, and neither Rozansky nor his estate waived physician-patient privilege. A dissenting opinion argued that Rozansky's refusal to be deposed due to dementia did place his condition in controversy, warranting medical record disclosure.

Personal InjuryMedical Records DiscoveryPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeProtective OrderDiscovery SanctionsStriking AnswerDementiaAlzheimer's DiseaseAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. ADJ8329154, ADJ8329147, ADJ6945103, ADJ8329173, ADJ8329177
Regular
Nov 25, 2013

ENRIQUE ESTRADA TOVAR vs. VILLA AMOROSA CONSTRUCTION, AMTRUST, HILL FAMILY VINEYARD MANAGEMENT and INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, MARIA'S MARKET and GUARD INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. It granted the defendant's petition in ADJ8329177, amending the prior decision. Specifically, the Board rescinded findings and the award related to employment with Blanket Estates. The amended decision now finds no employment by Blanket Estates for the claimed periods, resulting in no award for the applicant in ADJ8329177.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenialGrantDecision After ReconsiderationFindingsAwardNo EmploymentTake NothingAdjudication of Claim
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jimenez v. Estate of Jimenez

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Julio Jimenez, while operating a grocery business owned by the estate of his deceased brother Roberto, was murdered. Julio's wife, Amparo Jimenez, filed for workers' compensation benefits for herself and their three minor children. The Board found an employer-employee relationship existed between Julio and Roberto's estate, a decision contested by the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the estate, by accepting the benefits of Julio's efforts, was estopped from denying an employment relationship.

Employment RelationshipEstate LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHomicideUninsured Employers' FundAppellate ReviewEstoppelDependent BenefitsBusiness OperationVolunteer Services
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DelRossi v. V

This case addresses an application by Bernadette DelRossi, as administratrix of her deceased husband John E. DelRossi's estate, for court approval of a wrongful death settlement and a declaration regarding a lien asserted by Aetna/U.S. Healthcare. John E. DelRossi died due to alleged medical malpractice, leading to a wrongful death action that settled for $825,000. Aetna/U.S. Healthcare (Aetna/Rawlings), an ERISA plan administrator, sought reimbursement for medical benefits paid to the decedent from these proceeds. The court ruled that Aetna/Rawlings' lien was invalid against the wrongful death settlement, as such proceeds do not form part of the decedent's estate and the administratrix, in this capacity, is not considered a plan member. The court granted all aspects of the plaintiff's application, including approving the settlement, counsel fees, the proposed distribution plan to the six distributees, and dispensing with the requirement for the administratrix to post a bond.

Wrongful DeathMedical MalpracticeERISA PreemptionSettlement DistributionLien InvalidityEstate AdministrationPecuniary LossInfant DistributeesJudicial DiscretionStatutory Interpretation
References
31
Case No. ADJ8556609
Regular
Jul 01, 2018

LUIS ROBLES vs. THE ESTATE OF VICKY BLEAZARD, dba BLEAZARD COMPANY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The WCAB granted the applicant's petition for removal, reversing the WCJ's decision that denied joinder of the employer's estate and the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF). The Board clarified that Labor Code § 5306 permits workers' compensation claims against a deceased uninsured employer's estate, irrespective of probate presentation. Furthermore, the Board found UEBTF properly joined due to the Estate's general appearance and service of a special notice of lawsuit. Consequently, the case is returned for further proceedings with both the Estate and UEBTF joined as defendants.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalEstate of Vicky BleazardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundLabor Code § 3715Labor Code § 5306general appearancespecial notice of lawsuitprobate courtstatute of limitations
References
2
Case No. No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

The Matter of the Claim of Estate of Norman Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corporation

Decedent Norman Youngjohn, employed by Berry Plastics Corporation, suffered work-related injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow in 2014, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Before his permanent partial disability benefits claim for a schedule loss of use (SLU) award was resolved, Youngjohn died in March 2017 from a heart attack unrelated to his work injuries. He left no surviving spouse, minor children, or qualifying dependents. His estate sought the full value of the posthumous SLU award, arguing that 2009 amendments to the Workers' Compensation Law, which permitted lump sum SLU payments, rendered WCL § 15 (4) (d) inapplicable. This section limits an estate's recovery for unaccrued SLU benefits to reasonable funeral expenses in cases of unrelated death without qualifying survivors. The Workers' Compensation Board limited the award to funeral expenses, while the Appellate Division held that the estate was entitled to the portion accrued up to the date of death plus reasonable funeral expenses. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the 2009 amendments on lump sum payments did not implicitly alter WCL § 15 (4) (d)'s limitation on an estate's recovery of posthumous SLU awards. The Court emphasized that section 15 (4) (d) remains in effect and must be harmonized with the amendments, limiting recovery to benefits accrued before death and reasonable funeral expenses for the remainder.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lump Sum PaymentEstate RecoveryFuneral ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAccrual of BenefitsNew York Court of AppealsUnrelated Death
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matthius v. Platinum Estates, Inc.

JAC Construction Corp. appealed an order that granted indemnification to Grymes Hill Estates, Inc., John Culotta, Robert Ricca, and Platinum Estates, Inc., for costs and attorney's fees in a personal injury action. JAC argued that a subsequent agreement with a merger clause superseded a prior indemnification agreement. The court found the January 17th agreement to be incomplete and ambiguous, allowing the admission of the prior indemnification agreement as extrinsic evidence without contradicting the later contract. The indemnification agreement clarified insurance coverage and indemnification obligations. The court also noted that the merger clause did not extinguish the indemnification agreement because the two contracts dealt with different subject matter. Furthermore, JAC demonstrated its intent to be bound by the indemnification agreement by obtaining the required insurance. Therefore, the referee's report, finding the respondents entitled to indemnification, was properly confirmed.

IndemnificationMerger ClauseParol Evidence RuleContract InterpretationAmbiguityExtrinsic EvidenceGeneral ContractorOwnerPersonal InjuriesAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 13,322 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