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. 80 Civil 4699
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1982

Wallace v. INTERN. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, ETC.

Plaintiff Oscar L. Wallace sued the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots and its Ex. President Capt. Robert J. Lowen after his application for union membership was denied. He alleged wrongful denial of admission, termination of applicant status, denial of due process, equal protection violations, refusal to refer to job assignments, violation of his right to sue, conspiracy, and racial discrimination. The court dismissed most of his claims, including those based on alleged membership rights and civil rights violations, finding he had no vested right to membership and failed to show state action or a conspiracy. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the claim for breach of fair representation, acknowledging the union's duty to an applicant regarding job referrals.

Union MembershipFair RepresentationDue ProcessCivil RightsFederal JurisdictionMotion to DismissLabor LawConspiracyRacial DiscriminationEmployment Rights
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1998

People v. Tullo

In this case, the court addresses an application for an ex parte order of protection against a defendant charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, stemming from a single threatening telephone call. The Assistant District Attorney sought the order based on new facts not included in the original accusatory instrument. Judge Joel B. Gewanter denied the application, interpreting CPL 530.13 (2) to limit ex parte orders of protection solely to factual allegations present within the filed accusatory instrument. The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. It suggested that for new charges, a new complaint and arrest would be the appropriate procedure for issuing such an order.

Aggravated HarassmentSecond DegreeEx Parte Order of ProtectionCriminal Procedure LawCPL 530.13MisdemeanorFirst ImpressionTelephone CallThreatening StatementDue Process
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 1992

Lindenhurst Fabricators, Inc. v. Iron Workers Local 580 ex rel. Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds

The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, vacated an arbitrator's award that found the petitioner liable for unpaid contributions to the Local 580 Joint Funds. The petitioner had argued that documents establishing the obligation to arbitrate were forgeries and challenged the arbitrator's admission of a third document. However, the Appellate Court reversed this judgment, holding that the lower court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the arbitrator regarding evidence admissibility. The Appellate Court also noted that the petitioner waived its jurisdictional claims by actively participating in the arbitration proceedings without seeking a stay.

Arbitration AwardVacation of AwardConfirmation of AwardCPLR 7511CPLR 7510Evidentiary RulesWaiver of JurisdictionHandwriting ExpertUnion ContributionsEmployee Benefits Funds
References
2
Case No. No. 47
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

The People v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the Sexual Assault Reform Act's (SARA) school grounds condition, codified in Executive Law § 259-c (14), violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution when applied to offenders whose crimes predated the 2005 SARA amendments. Petitioner Danny Rivera, convicted in 1986 and later designated a level three sexually violent offender, faced prolonged incarceration due to his inability to find SARA-compliant housing. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that Rivera failed to demonstrate, by the clearest proof, that the SARA condition's effects are so punitive as to negate its civil intent, thereby not violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Ex Post Facto ClauseSexual Assault Reform Act (SARA)Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)Residency RestrictionParole ConditionsIncarcerationRetroactive ApplicationConstitutional LawPunishmentCivil Remedy
References
83
Case No. ADJ9274286
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

RAMON CERVANTES vs. CBS OUTDOOR INC.

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration and dismissed removal, upholding the WCJ's findings. Applicant sought contempt charges and attorney's fees due to an ex parte communication with a PQME, but the Board found such remedies discretionary and not mandated under the circumstances. Declaratory relief regarding PQME report admissibility is premature; admissibility will be determined at trial. The Board dismissed removal as reconsideration is the proper procedural remedy for this final order.

ex parte communicationPQMEdeclaratory reliefcontemptsanctionsremovaladmissibility of reportsdiscretionary powerindirect contemptdirect contempt
References
3
Case No. ADJ11255791
Regular
Nov 02, 2019

MARIA FRANCISCA JIMENEZ vs. J. RODRIGUEZ FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal of a trial setting order due to an alleged ex parte communication between the applicant's attorney and the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Appeals Board granted removal, finding that the issue of the QME's report admissibility must be resolved before proceeding to trial on all issues. The Board rescinded the prior orders and remanded the matter for adjudication of the QME dispute first, noting that prejudice is not necessarily required for a violation of ex parte communication rules. This bifurcated approach aims for judicial efficiency, preventing potentially unnecessary trials if a new QME is ultimately required.

Petition for RemovalEx Parte CommunicationQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Admissibility of ReportsPre-Trial ConferenceDiscoveryCase LawLabor CodeAppeals BoardRemoval Order
References
6
Case No. 100559/2014
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2020

State of N.Y. ex rel. Edelweiss Fund, LLC v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co.

This is a qui tam action brought by Edelweiss Fund, LLC on behalf of the State of New York against numerous financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The Relator alleges a fraudulent scheme involving the "robo-resetting" of interest rates for municipal Variable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDOs) and a conspiracy, in violation of the New York False Claims Act. Defendants, acting as remarketing agents, allegedly failed to set the lowest possible interest rates for VRDOs by using an algorithm and grouping unrelated bonds, thereby extracting excessive fees and benefiting their own money market funds. The court denied the defendants' joint motion to dismiss, finding the complaint sufficiently pleaded fraud and conspiracy under the NYFCA's heightened pleading standards. Additionally, M & T Bank Corporation's separate motion to dismiss was denied, as the court ruled that the NYFCA applies even to conduit bonds where government funds are involved, upholding a broad interpretation of the Act.

Qui Tam ActionFalse Claims ActNew York State Finance LawMunicipal BondsVariable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDOs)Interest Rate ManipulationRobo-Resetting SchemeFinancial InstitutionsRemarketing AgentsConspiracy
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.T. ex rel. N.M. v. New York City Department of Education

The plaintiff, M.T., on behalf of her son N.M., challenged the State Review Officer's (SRO) decision denying tuition reimbursement for N.M.'s placement at the Rebecca School for the 2010-2011 school year. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision which found the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide N.M. with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court found that the SRO improperly relied on retrospective testimony regarding the possibility of extending a 1:1 transitional paraprofessional beyond the four months provided in the Individualized Education Program (IEP). Citing recent Second Circuit precedent (R.E. and Reyes), the court ruled that such retrospective adjustments are impermissible. Due to the court's lack of educational expertise and the unclear centrality of this error to the SRO's decision, both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied, and the case was remanded to the state administrative officers for further consideration in light of the Reyes decision.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramSpecial EducationSummary JudgmentRemandState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerRetrospective TestimonyTransitional Paraprofessional
References
27
Case No. ADJ4611192 (VNO 0517259) ADJ816172 (VNO 0517524)
Regular
May 10, 2012

BRYAN MOSS vs. FED EX/KINKO'S, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The administrative law judge found no good cause to reopen for new and further disabilities, specifically a psychiatric injury, due to inadmissible medical evidence and lack of primary treating physician review. The applicant's argument regarding due process and the admissibility of the doctor's report was rejected. The Board considered the supplemental filings and ultimately affirmed the WCJ's denial of the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionNew and Further DisabilitiesPsychiatric InjuryCompensable ConsequenceAdmissibility of ReportLabor Code section 5502(e)(3)Labor Code section 4061.5Due Process
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 932 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