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

BIRMINGHAM ASSOCIATES LTD. v. Abbott Laboratories

Birmingham Associates Ltd. sued Abbott Laboratories for breach of a Keep Well Agreement after Abbott terminated the development of a stent product in which Birmingham had invested. Abbott moved to compel arbitration, asserting that despite the Keep Well Agreement lacking an arbitration clause, the dispute was intimately tied to a Funding Agreement between Birmingham and Abbott's subsidiary, ALVE, which included a broad arbitration clause. The court granted Abbott's motion, applying the equitable estoppel doctrine due to the close relationship between Abbott and ALVE and the intertwined nature of the agreements, ruling that Birmingham could not rely on the agreements for its claims while simultaneously avoiding their arbitration provisions. The action was dismissed, compelling the parties to resolve the dispute through arbitration.

ArbitrationEquitable EstoppelContract LawFunding AgreementKeep Well AgreementParent-Subsidiary RelationshipZoMaxx StentStent DevelopmentInvestment DisputeMotion to Compel Arbitration
References
28
Case No. CA 12-02373
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2013

ABBOTT, JONATHAN v. CROWN MILL RESTORATION DEVELOPMENT

The plaintiff, Jonathan Abbott, commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Crown Mill Restoration Development, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall. A default judgment was entered against Crown Mill after it failed to appear at a damages inquest. Crown Mill moved to vacate the default judgment, citing law office failure and meritorious defenses, including that the Workers' Compensation Law barred recovery. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, affirming the denial to vacate the default judgment but granting the motion in part to vacate the default judgment only insofar as it awarded specific damages. The case was remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for a new assessment of damages. The court found Crown Mill failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default and did not prove fraud or misrepresentation. Additionally, appeals related to an enforcement action based on piercing the corporate veil were dismissed or affirmed.

Default JudgmentVacaturDamages AssessmentAppellate ReviewLaw Office FailureCorporate Veil PiercingNegligencePersonal InjuryAppealsJudicial Discretion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 1998

Passananti v. City of New York

The plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendant Abbott-Somer, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs’ causes of action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The court affirmed the order, finding that Abbott-Somer, Inc. did not exercise supervisory control over the injured plaintiff's work, a precondition for liability under Labor Law § 200. Furthermore, as Abbott-Somer, Inc. was neither an owner nor a general contractor, and did not act as a statutory agent, liability could not attach under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. Therefore, the causes of action against Abbott-Somer, Inc. were properly dismissed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction Site SafetySupervisory ControlStatutory AgentOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityWorkplace Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ8128004
Regular
Nov 28, 2017

GLADYS PATINO vs. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC./ABBOTT VASCULAR, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY of AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original findings regarding the applicant's requirement to seek treatment within the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Board found that the employer's MPN notice may not have complied with the bilingual notice requirement under California regulations. Therefore, the issue of treatment outside the MPN was deferred, and the case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record on this issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPN NoticeContinuity of CarePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJNotice of DenialPrimary Treating PhysicianDue Process
References
5
Case No. SDO 355322
Regular
Feb 06, 2008

Jocelyn Dubbs vs. Abbott Vascular, ACE USA c/o MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a Finding and Award that determined applicant sustained an industrial injury to her right upper extremity. The Board clarified that the temporary disability rate in the award should be corrected to $626.35 per week to align with the Findings of Fact, despite the defendant's arguments regarding concurrent employment and average weekly earnings. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was denied as the Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report and recommendation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJocelyn DubbsAbbott VascularACE USASDO 355322Reconsideration DeniedClerical Error CorrectionIndustrial InjuryRight Upper ExtremityAverage Weekly Earnings
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zygler v. Tenzer Coat Co.

An employer and carrier appealed a disability award granted to a claimant who suffered a cerebral vascular episode after an oral quarrel with his foreman over work distribution. The Workers' Compensation Board had previously determined this constituted an accident, reversing a Referee's finding of no accident. The court, however, found that an argument without physical violence, even if it leads to a vascular incident, does not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, especially when such arguments are common in piece work environments. Citing relevant precedents involving similar emotional strain without physical exertion leading to heart attacks or vascular incidents, the court concluded that a finding of accident could not be sustained. Consequently, the award was reversed, and the claim was dismissed, with costs awarded to the appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationAccident DefinitionCerebral Vascular EpisodeEmotional StrainOral QuarrelDisability AwardEmployer LiabilityCarrier LiabilityPiece WorkPre-existing Condition
References
3
Case No. SJO 238655 SJO 238656 SJO 238657
Regular
Apr 02, 2008

JAMES BEENE vs. ANDERSON CHEVROLET/AUTONATION, INC., ACE-USA, UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award because the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion was based on an incorrect legal theory regarding industrial causation. The Board found that the AME's opinion that the applicant's vascular condition was not industrially caused or aggravated was not substantial evidence, requiring further development of the record. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for the AME to provide a supplemental opinion on whether the vascular condition was industrially caused or a consequence of the admitted injury.

workers compensationindustrial injuryvascular systemagreed medical evaluatorAMEreconsiderationtemporary disability indemnityTDIlien claimsubrogation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. Suffolk County Police Department

Plaintiff Thomas C. Wallace initiated a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Police Department, John Gallagher, Phillip Robilotto, and James Abbott, alleging retaliation for his protected speech concerning alleged shortcomings and corruption within the SCPD. Plaintiff contended that he was forcibly retired and subjected to other harassing acts in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claims, allowing them to proceed, and also denied the motion to dismiss the Monell claims against the municipal defendants. However, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. The individual defendants' claim of qualified immunity and Defendant Abbott's argument that claims against him were untimely were also denied.

42 U.S.C. Section 1983First Amendment RightsRetaliationFreedom of SpeechPublic Employee SpeechAdverse Employment ActionMunicipal LiabilityMonell ClaimQualified ImmunitySuffolk County Police Department
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Abbott

Respondent, an attorney admitted in 1952, faced disciplinary charges from the Committee on Professional Standards. The charges included improper ex parte communications, sending harassing correspondence with false information, aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law (Betty O. Muka), making false and unsupported allegations in court and during investigations, and attempting to mislead the petitioner. These acts occurred during his representation in the Dahl v Baetz litigation and the Esther L. Bruce estate matter. Despite a previously clean record and expressed remorse, the court found the misconduct very serious. The respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years to protect the public and uphold the Bar's reputation.

Professional MisconductAttorney DisciplineEx Parte CommunicationFalse AllegationsUnauthorized Practice of LawHarassmentMisleading the CourtEthical ViolationsSuspension of AttorneyBar Association Standards
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1978

Abbott v. Acker

The case is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Saratoga County that denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action in the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff, a plumber and pipefitter, alleged that he was denied union membership and benefits by Local No. 7 and wrongfully removed from his job with Kramer and Sons, Inc. The core legal question was whether state courts were pre-empted by federal labor laws, specifically the National Labor Relations Act. The court concluded that the first and fifth causes of action, involving employer-union interaction and unfair labor practices, fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. However, the fourth cause of action, alleging a breach of the union's duty of fair representation, was deemed within state court jurisdiction. Consequently, the order was modified to grant the dismissal of the first and fifth causes of action, while affirming the denial of dismissal for the fourth.

Labor LawJurisdictionPreemption DoctrineNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeDuty of Fair RepresentationUnion MembershipMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 29 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