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

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. American Re-Insurance Co.

The case revolves around a dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company and American Re-Insurance Company regarding a pollution exclusion clause in a reinsurance policy. National Union sought reimbursement from American Re after settling claims where employees were exposed to metalworking fluids. American Re denied coverage, arguing its pollution exclusion applied. The court, applying Ohio law, found American Re's pollution exclusion ambiguous due to its broad language and its intended purpose of covering environmental contamination. Consequently, American Re's motion for summary judgment was denied, and National Union's motion to strike American Re's defense was granted, requiring American Re to "follow the fortunes" of National Union.

ReinsurancePollution Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationFollow the Fortunes DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAmbiguity in ContractsOhio State LawDiversity JurisdictionIndustrial Contamination
References
31
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03287
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Dejesus v. Downtown Re Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Brian Dejesus was injured when a steel tubing fell through a gap in a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, addressing multiple indemnification and breach of contract claims among the owner (Downtown Re Holdings LLC), general contractor (Noble Construction Group, LLC), and various subcontractors. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Noble's negligence and granted Downtown summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. due to its negligence in bridge erection. Claims against City Safety Compliance Corp. were dismissed as its role was merely advisory. The decision also involved contractual indemnification between Downtown/Noble and The Safety Group, Ltd., granting a breach of contract claim against TSG for failing to procure required insurance.

Construction AccidentSidewalk Bridge DefectIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance ProcurementBreach of Contract
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2005

In re the Claim of Abramson

Claimant, an accountant placed by Staff Plus, Inc. at Goldman Sachs, was denied extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Staff Plus was his base period employer, making him ineligible because Staff Plus was not a provider of services to an air carrier. An initial appeal led to remittal for further record development regarding the relationship between Staff Plus and the claimant. After re-evaluation, the Board reiterated its decision, finding a clear employment relationship between claimant and Staff Plus, which was supported by the evidence. The court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the denial of TEUC-A benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsTEUC-ATemporary Employment AgencyEmployment RelationshipBase Period EmployerDisplaced Airline-Related WorkersEligibility for BenefitsAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Carlson

Holland Village, Inc., a non-profit organization, hired a claimant and other workers to complete the construction of a ship following the death of the original contractor. The claimant entered into an oral contract to continue carpentry work for $9 per hour. Holland's president actively managed the project by inspecting work, receiving weekly reports, paying wages, and resolving workplace disputes. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Holland exercised sufficient control over the claimant and similarly situated individuals, thereby establishing an employer-employee relationship and making Holland liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings.

Unemployment insuranceEmployer-employee relationshipControl testWorkers' statusNon-profit corporationCarpentry workOral contractAppellate DivisionLiability for contributionsDecision affirmed
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Professional Career Center, Inc.

The Professional Career Center, Inc., offering real estate education, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's assessment for additional unemployment insurance contributions. The assessment stemmed from a determination that the Center's teachers were employees, not independent contractors. Despite a consulting agreement, the court found substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. This was based on the Center's control over hiring, payment, quality, student recruitment, tuition, scheduling, and curriculum adherence. The court concluded that these factors supported the finding, affirming the decision against Professional Career Center, Inc.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorProfessional EducationReal Estate LicensingLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContributionsAudit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

This Memorandum & Order by Judge Korman addresses objections to the allocation of settlement funds in the In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation class action. The Pink Triangle Coalition and Disability Rights Advocates proposed separate cy pres distributions for homosexual and disabled Nazi victims, respectively, aiming to fund education, research, and advocacy programs. They argued these groups were historically overlooked and difficult to identify for individual compensation. Judge Korman rejected both proposals, reaffirming the current allocation strategy of distributing funds directly to the neediest individual Holocaust survivors. The judge reasoned that the overwhelming and life-sustaining needs of survivors, particularly in areas like the Former Soviet Union, supersede the proposed cy pres distributions. He emphasized that the primary goal is restitution to individual victims, that there are no distinct sub-classes, and that disabled survivors are already major recipients of aid.

HolocaustClass Action SettlementFund AllocationCy Pres DoctrineVictim CompensationHomosexual VictimsDisabled VictimsNazi PersecutionHumanitarian AidSurvivor Support
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ndremizara v. Swiss Re America Holding Corp.

Plaintiff Jason Ndremizara sued Swiss Re America Holding Corporation for age discrimination under the ADEA and NYSHRL after being denied an actuarial analyst position. Despite multiple applications and claims of being more qualified than younger hires, the plaintiff's complaint was challenged by the defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Court had previously allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint twice to address deficiencies, but he declined to do so further. Ultimately, the District Court granted the defendant's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, ruling that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege facts supporting an inference of age discrimination.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationActuarial AnalystMotion to DismissPro Se LitigantADEANYSHRLFailure to HirePrima Facie CaseInference of Discrimination
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Am

Following an initial guardianship proceeding where AM sought to be appointed guardian for AT, who was declared incapacitated, the court appointed TT as personal needs guardian and Frank G. D’Angelo, Jr. as property management guardian on April 2, 2007. AM subsequently filed a motion to reargue, seeking continued access to AT, permission to remain in AT's East Atlantic Beach home with gratuitous transfers, and attorney's fees. The court, in this opinion, re-evaluated its prior interpretation of Mental Hygiene Law § 81.16(f) and granted AM an award of $16,000 in counsel fees from AT's estate. The court also indicated willingness to entertain a schedule for AM's contact with AT, but adjourned the application regarding the real property and gratuitous transfers, pending further submissions and an accounting from AM regarding his management of AT's affairs and the sale of her Beekman Place property.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonReargument MotionMental Hygiene Law Article 81Property ManagementPersonal Needs GuardianFiduciary DutySubstituted JudgmentCounsel FeesEstate Planning
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Pinti

This case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which reversed a referee's decision and determined that emergency medical technicians (EMTs) working for an ambulance service employer were employees, not independent contractors, thus assessing the employer contributions. The central question for review was whether substantial evidence supported the board's conclusion regarding the employer-employee relationship. The court examined the record, noting factors such as EMTs' scheduling, payment structure, lack of business investment, and the employer's provision of liability and workers' compensation insurance. Despite some factors that could support a contrary finding, the court concluded that the board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed without costs.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent Contractor StatusEmergency Medical TechniciansSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate ReviewLabor Law ContributionsAmbulance Service IndustryWorkers' Compensation InsuranceBoard Decision Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Tiffany A.

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order that dismissed a petition to terminate parental rights, releasing the child, Tiffany A., to her biological mother despite admissions of permanent neglect. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the Family Court erred by not applying a 'best interests of the child' analysis solely, instead relying on a flawed legal framework that prioritized the biological mother's parental rights due to her rehabilitation efforts. The appellate court emphasized the foster parents' superior ability to care for Tiffany's special needs, given her difficult birth and developmental challenges. The matter was remitted for a new dispositional hearing before a different judge to determine Tiffany's best interests, acknowledging her recent extended stay with her biological mother.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfarePermanent NeglectFoster Care AdoptionBest Interests of the ChildSubstance Abuse RehabilitationFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewDispositional HearingJudicial Discretion
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,510 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