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 Gallagher ex rel. Gallagher v. Houlihan Lawrence Real Estate

Claimant, the wife of a deceased real estate agent, sought workers' compensation benefits, asserting her husband was an employee of the real estate firm. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, relying on an independent contractor agreement. On appeal, the court found that the WCLJ prematurely closed the hearing, preventing the claimant from presenting further evidence regarding the employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to fully develop the record on this crucial issue.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewRemittalSubstantial EvidenceRight of ControlReal Estate AgentDeath BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
3
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

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. ADJ2309587 (RDG 0123822)
Regular
Dec 17, 2008

WALTER LEO SYKES, JR. (Deceased) KATHLEEN S. MAGUIRE, As Personal Representative vs. LEWISTON COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

This case concerns the employer's obligation to pay a death benefit to the Death Without Dependents (DWD) unit after an employee died without dependents. The employer had previously paid benefits to the deceased employee's estate under a now-unconstitutional statute, and sought credit for those payments against the DWD award. The Board affirmed the $125,000 death benefit award to the DWD unit, disallowing any credit for payments made to the estate, and deferred the issue of the estate's liability to the employer.

Death Without Dependents UnitLewiston Community Services DistrictWalter Leo Sykes Jr.Kathleen S. MaguireAthens AdministratorsLabor Code section 4706.5(h)Labor Code section 4702(a)(6)Six Flags Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rackchamroon)unconstitutional statuterestitution
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ohriner v. Jamaice Wet Wash Laundry Co.

The Employer and Carrier appealed a posthumous award for disability and death benefits, granted from June 20, 1952, until the employee's death on February 27, 1953. The accident itself was not disputed, but its causal relation to the employee's death was questioned. The employee slipped at work, was caught by his knees over a shift lever, and remained suspended upside down. He immediately felt pain. Initially diagnosed as a ruptured vertebral disc, it was later determined he suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Medical opinion, based on his prior good health and immediate illness after the accident, concluded that the accident aggravated the pre-existing disease and contributed to his death. The award was affirmed with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

posthumous awarddisability benefitsdeath benefitscausationaggravation of pre-existing conditionamyotrophic lateral sclerosiswork accidentspinal cord injurynervous system diseasemedical opinion
References
0
Case No. SAC 0354059
Regular
Jul 24, 2007

DAVID LONG (Deceased) STEVEN LONG (Administrator of the Estate Of DAVID LONG) vs. MEDIA NEWS GROUP, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns a deceased worker whose estate was initially awarded death benefits under Labor Code section 4702(a)(6)(B). However, after a subsequent court ruling found this specific statute unconstitutional, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) amended its decision. Consequently, the award to the deceased's estate was removed, as were associated attorney's fees, while the award to the Death Without Dependents Unit remains valid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeceasedEstateIndustrial InjuryDeath Without Dependents UnitLabor Code section 4702(a)(6)(B)Labor Code section 4706.5(a)UnconstitutionalSix Flags Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rackchamroon)Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Monahan v. Remington Rand, Inc.

A self-insured employer appealed a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision granting death benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. The core issue was whether the employee's death resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The employee, an outside service man, was killed in a car accident on his way home after volunteering to repair a machine for his employer in Albany. The Board determined he remained an outside worker and that the accident was work-related. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Board's decision justified by the evidence, as the work performed was clearly for the employer's benefit.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsOutside WorkerCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewVoluntary WorkFatal AccidentBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01140 [224 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 29, 2024

Demarest v. Village of Greenwich

This case involves an appeal from an order denying summary judgment to the Village of Greenwich in a negligence and premises liability action. The plaintiff, Rachael Demarest, individually and as administrator of her deceased son's estate, sued after her son died when a Department of Public Works (DPW) employee dumped snow on him while he was playing in a snowbank. The snowbank was created by the DPW on a lot owned by Robert M. Sipperly. The Supreme Court denied the Village's motion for summary judgment, finding unresolved issues of fact regarding the Village's duty of care and proximate cause. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, holding that a contractual obligation to store snow could create a duty of care if the Village launched a 'force or instrument of harm.' The court noted the Village's failure to adhere to safety protocols, place 'no trespassing' signs despite known propensities of children to play on snowbanks, and adequately inspect the area, thus raising questions of foreseeability. The court also determined that the children's status as trespassers did not absolve the Village of its duty of reasonable care and that proximate cause remained a question of fact.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty of CareForeseeabilityChildrenSnow RemovalDepartment of Public WorksAppellate ReviewProximate Cause
References
19
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04825
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2017

LaLima v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The plaintiff, Vienna LaLima, individually and as administratrix of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a Supreme Court order that denied her motion to amend the complaint. Her husband, a Verizon employee, died after contacting a high voltage power line. LaLima initially sued Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Lewis Tree Service, and the City of New York. Verizon, a third-party defendant, had agreed to preserve the accident truck, but it was vandalized. LaLima sought to add Verizon as a direct defendant, alleging various causes of action including negligence, Labor Law violations, spoliation of evidence, and wrongful death. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that Workers' Compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy against an employer for work-related death and that New York does not recognize spoliation of evidence as an independent tort. The court found the proposed amendments patently devoid of merit.

personal injurywrongful deathspoliation of evidenceWorkers' Compensation Lawexclusive remedyfraudulent concealmentamendment of complaintappellate reviewcivil procedureemployer liability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,038 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