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 Plew-Jourdanais v. Adirondack Heating & Frost Insulators, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision granting death benefits to James Jourdanais Jr., the disabled son of the deceased James Jourdanais Sr. The decedent's wife, the claimant, appealed the finding that James Jr. was a dependent, eligible for benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (2-a). The appellate court reviewed the factual question of dependency, emphasizing the need for evidence of adverse financial effect from the loss of the decedent's contributions. Finding no substantial evidence that James Jr. or his guardians were adversely affected by the loss of the decedent's contributions, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath BenefitsDependencyDisabled ChildFinancial ContributionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalLegal Guardianship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albertson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

The court ruled that rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice do not provide for granting summary judgment in an equity action concerning the determination of title for adverse claimants to a fund held by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Consequently, the previous judgment and order were unanimously reversed, with costs awarded, and the motion was denied.

Summary JudgmentEquity ActionCivil ProcedureAdverse ClaimsFund DisputeReversed Judgment
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05464 [220 AD3d 614]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2023

Children's Magical Garden, Inc. v. Marom

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted an adverse inference charge against the defendant for spoliation of evidence. The Supreme Court found the defendant grossly negligent in spoliation. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, determined that the imposed adverse inference charge was inappropriate because it required rather than permitted the jury to draw an adverse inference. Furthermore, due to conflicting testimony, the issues of spoliation and the warrant for an adverse inference should have been presented to the jury first. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order by deleting the specific adverse inference charge, remanding the matter for a new charge, and otherwise affirming the order.

Spoliation of evidenceAdverse inference chargeGross negligenceAppellate reviewEvidentiary sanctionsCivil procedureDiscoveryJury instructionsRemandNew York law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moskal v. Fleet Bank

Plaintiff Mark Moskal, a jeweler, was robbed in Fleet Bank's basement vault area after being directed by a security guard to use a stairwell due to elevator renovations. Moskal and his wife sued Fleet Bank, the building owner (UOB Realty), managing agent (Axiom Real Estate), security company (Effective Security Systems, Inc.), and contractor (Interior Construction Company), alleging negligence for failure to protect him from foreseeable danger. The court granted summary judgment to UOB, Axiom, Security, and Interior, finding the attack unforeseeable by them and no duty owed. However, Fleet Bank's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, as the court found questions of fact for a jury regarding Fleet's potential duty to Moskal, given its awareness of the stairwell's danger and its specific policy prohibiting customer use, which was allegedly disregarded.

ForeseeabilityNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty of CareCriminal Act of Third PersonsBank SecurityStairwell DangerConstruction NegligenceRobbery
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Finley v. Higger Sign Co.

Claimant's husband, a neon sign worker, fell from a ladder in May 1951, sustaining traumatic myositis. He was later diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the rectum and died in August 1951. Medical opinions were divided on whether the fall aggravated the carcinoma. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found no adverse effect from the fall. The court affirmed the board's decision, holding that the factual finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationNeon Sign WorkerTraumatic MyositisAdenocarcinomaCausationSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionAppealDeath ClaimBoard Decision Affirmed
References
0
Case No. ADJ10092427
Regular
Jan 02, 2018

BRIAN WILLIAMS vs. SAN DIEGO PADRES, DETROIT TIGERS, CHICAGO CUBS, BALTIMORE ORIOLES, HOUSTON ASTROS, TIG MANCHESTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by the Detroit Tigers, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal. The WCJ recommended denial because further factual discovery, specifically a deposition of the applicant, was necessary to address the application and effect of Labor Code section 3600.5 regarding jurisdiction. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, holding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issued. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted by the Appeals Board.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 3600.5Subject Matter JurisdictionProfessional AthletePlace of HireDuty DaysPre-trial Conference
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1994

Austin v. Local 1-2

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 17, 1994. The defendants sought to disqualify the plaintiff's attorney, Stuart Bochner, in an action for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court denied the disqualification motion, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. The court held that Bochner's representation of a separate entity related to the defendant union, on unrelated matters, did not create an adverse effect on his professional judgment. Furthermore, his previous role as general counsel for the union ten years prior was not substantially related to his current representation of the plaintiff, thus not warranting disqualification.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestProfessional EthicsBreach of ContractWrongful DischargePrior RepresentationLegal EthicsAppellate ReviewSupreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Aerospace and Defense Co. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Aerospace and Defense Company (Aerospace Committee) appealed a Bankruptcy Court's November 5, 1991, order that authorized LTV Steel to make payments to the J & L Hourly Pension Plan. The Aerospace Committee claimed standing based on the potential consolidation of LTV estates, a prospective claim for contribution against LTV Steel, and the effect on their cash distributions. The District Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Aerospace Committee lacked standing. The court found their asserted interests too indirect and speculative, emphasizing that a party must be directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by a bankruptcy order to have standing for appeal.

Bankruptcy AppealStanding DoctrinePecuniary InterestCreditors' RightsPension Benefit Guaranty CorporationERISAChapter 11 BankruptcyCorporate ReorganizationJoint and Several LiabilityControlled Group
References
27
Case No. 91 Civ. 8373 (DNE)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1992

In Re Chateaugay Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Aerospace and Defense Company (Aerospace Committee) from a Bankruptcy Court order. The order authorized LTV Steel Company, Inc. to make payments to a pension plan. The LTV Corporation and its affiliates had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1986, with cases procedurally but not substantively consolidated. The Aerospace Committee claimed standing to appeal, arguing potential impact from a future unitary reorganization plan, a claim for contribution, and effects on cash distributions. The District Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Aerospace Committee lacked standing because its pecuniary interests were not directly and adversely affected, and its arguments were speculative.

Bankruptcy AppealStandingPecuniary InterestUnsecured Creditors CommitteePension Plan FundingERISAControlled Group LiabilityChapter 11 ProceedingsProcedural ConsolidationSubstantive Consolidation
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,421 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