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

Fulton Boiler Works, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance

Fulton Boiler Works, Inc., filed an action against several insurance companies regarding defense and indemnification for thousands of asbestos claims. The court addressed multiple pending motions for summary judgment, focusing on the proper allocation of indemnity costs among the liable parties, Fulton's obligation for uninsured years, the applicability of equitable estoppel against insurers, and Travelers' specific obligations concerning notice of claims and disclaimers. The court ruled that a pro rata allocation of indemnity costs is appropriate, with Fulton liable for periods it was uninsured. Equitable estoppel was deemed inapplicable to bar insurers from seeking contribution, and Travelers was found to have received proper notice for many claims and is barred from disclaiming coverage due to untimely disclaimers. This order, along with a previous one, sets the 'ground rules' for resolving past, pending, and future asbestos claims.

Asbestos LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeIndemnity AllocationSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelNotice ProvisionsDisclaimer of CoveragePro Rata AllocationInjury-in-factComprehensive General Liability Policy
References
23
Case No. ADJ7298159
Regular
Feb 03, 2014

Keisha Boston vs. Regents of University of California

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an employee's discriminatory termination claim under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant alleged a continuing pattern of discriminatory conduct by the employer from her return-to-work date until her eventual termination. Initially, a WCJ found the claim untimely, asserting it was filed more than three years after the last discriminatory act. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and found the claim timely. The Board concluded that the applicant's section 132a petition, filed on October 21, 2011, was within one year of her termination and the last alleged discriminatory act on November 1, 2011, thus preserving the claim.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineDiscriminatory ActTerminationIndustrial InjuryPrima Facie CaseStipulations and AwardInteractive Process
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murphy v. Olean Tile Co.

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's silicosis. The claimant, exposed to silica dust from 1927-1947, stopped work in April 1956 due to the condition. The appellants argued disablement wasn't within two years of last exposure under section 44-a. Initially, a Referee awarded compensation, setting the disablement date as April 6, 1956, which the Board later affirmed after further evidence of exposure in the last four weeks of employment. The court affirmed the decision, finding substantial evidence of exposure and applying a retroactive amendment to section 44-a that deems claims compensable if disablement occurs during continued employment or two years thereafter when an employee is transferred from injurious to non-injurious exposure.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseWorkmen's Compensation LawSection 44-aInjurious ExposureDisablementRetroactive ApplicationAppellate ReviewMedical TestimonyEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1998

Realite v. Ark Restaurants Corp.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion for reconsideration in a collective action brought by hourly-paid, non-managerial employees against Ark Restaurants Corp. and its fifteen restaurants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York and New Jersey labor laws. Plaintiffs allege a widespread scheme of minimum wage and overtime violations. The court previously authorized class notice, but defendants challenged the scope, arguing a lack of commonality among employees and restaurants. After reviewing new affidavits from plaintiffs demonstrating a factual nexus of common compensation practices and central control by Ark, the court affirmed its earlier ruling. The court authorized notice to be sent to all hourly-paid employees who worked at the 14 New York Ark Restaurants within the last six years and the one New Jersey restaurant within the last three years, for discovery purposes, while reserving the right to decertify or subdivide the class later.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActCollective ActionClass NoticeOvertime PayMinimum WageTip CreditLabor Law ViolationsEmployment PracticesReconsideration Motion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Canfora v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Claimant suffered a work-related injury on May 2, 2001, and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. On May 29, 2008, the employer's workers' compensation carrier requested that liability be transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board transferred liability to the Special Fund effective May 30, 2006, which was two years prior to the date of the carrier’s application but within seven years of the injury date. The Special Fund appealed this decision, arguing that the transfer was precluded by Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, which requires both seven years from injury and three years from the last payment of compensation to have expired before liability can shift to the Special Fund. The appellate court found that the Board departed from its own precedent by allowing a retroactive transfer into the seven-year period without providing a rational explanation. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferRetroactive ApplicationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawWorkers’ Compensation Law § 25-aAppellate ReviewBoard PrecedentArbitrary and Capricious
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Imbriani v. Berkar Knitting Mills

Decedent, a heavy smoker, worked for 30 years in the textile industry, with the last five years exposing him to airborne cotton dust. He developed chronic advanced obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, and byssinosis, leading to total disability. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found his disability was due to byssinosis, an occupational disease, and awarded benefits. The employer did not appeal. Upon decedent's death a year later from cardiopulmonary arrest linked to his pulmonary disease and byssinosis, his widow filed for death benefits. A subsequent WCLJ reversed the prior finding of byssinosis, claiming insufficient evidence and lack of exposure to raw cotton. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this reversal. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding it arbitrary and capricious because the employer had not appealed the initial finding of byssinosis, making it final and binding. The Court also concluded that the Board's finding that death was unrelated to compensable byssinosis lacked record support, as medical testimony indicated byssinosis was a contributing factor. The case was remitted for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseByssinosisWorkers' CompensationPulmonary DiseaseEmphysemaCotton Dust ExposureCausal RelationshipDeath BenefitsRes JudicataCollateral Estoppel
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. ADJ9974849, ADJ8945012
Regular
Feb 14, 2020

Richard Porta vs. Surewest Communications, American Casualty Company, CNA Claims Plus

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded prior findings, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found that the Applicant sustained a single continuous cumulative injury to his shoulders through his last date of employment, March 26, 2013, rather than separate injuries as previously determined. The date of injury was established as September 27, 2014, when the Applicant gained knowledge of the work-related nature of his disability. Based on Labor Code section 5500.5, liability is limited to the employer during the year preceding the last date of injurious exposure, meaning the defendant American Casualty Company may not be liable.

cumulative traumashoulder injuryupper extremityhip injuryADP technicianmedical opinionAMEWPI apportionmentdate of injuryLabor Code Section 5500.5
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,334 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