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. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wessel v. Sichel

Plaintiff tenant sued defendant landlord and their agents for damages, alleging his apartment was rendered uninhabitable during repairs, items were stolen, and he was constructively evicted in retaliation for a prior rent reduction. Defendants counterclaimed and moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff requested repairs, then impeded work by changing locks and withholding rent. The trial court denied the motion, citing questions of retaliatory intent. The Appellate Division reversed, finding plaintiff's claims conclusory and lacking material evidence. The court granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Summary JudgmentConstructive EvictionRetaliationTenant RightsLandlord-Tenant DisputeAppellate ReviewConclusory EvidenceBurden of ProofDismissalApartment Repairs
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swiatkowski v. Citibank

Plaintiff Lidia Swiatkowski sued Citibank, Citigroup, Citimortgage, and CMI Servicing Agent, alleging violations of constitutional rights and RICO in connection with a foreclosure action on her property. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the federal claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, collateral estoppel, and res judicata, as Swiatkowski's claims largely sought to challenge and overturn prior state and bankruptcy court judgments. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. Defendants' request for sanctions was denied, with a warning to the plaintiff against future duplicative filings.

Rooker-Feldman DoctrineCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataForeclosure ActionBankruptcy ProceedingsCivil Rights ViolationsRICO ClaimsFraudulent DocumentsMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Durkin

The plaintiff, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, initiated an action seeking a declaration that sections 213 and 213-a of the New York State Insurance Law prohibited the retroactive payment of a wage increase. This increase of $2.85 per week was awarded by the National War Labor Board to its insurance agents, dating back to the start of arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff argued these statutes, designed to prevent excessive post-facto compensation, made such retroactive payments unlawful. However, the trial court and Appellate Division, whose decision was affirmed, concluded that the statutes were not intended to interfere with the common practice of collective bargaining and arbitration, which frequently involves retroactive wage adjustments. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the insurance laws was to curb abuses like bonuses and gratuities, not to hinder ordinary and orderly wage-fixing mechanisms, thereby affirming the legality of the retroactive wage increase.

Insurance RegulationRetroactive CompensationCollective Bargaining DisputesWage Arbitration AwardNew York Insurance LawLabor Relations BoardStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court RulingEmployee Benefits LitigationContractual Agreements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trombetta v. 775 Park Avenue, Inc.

A building maintenance worker sustained personal injuries while pushing a trash cart up an allegedly excessively steep ramp. The worker filed an action against the former managing agent of the residential cooperative, alleging negligence in the ramp's design and construction. The defendant-appellant, the former managing agent, moved for summary judgment, arguing it was no longer the managing agent at the time of the injury and was also protected by the Workers’ Compensation Law’s exclusivity provisions. The Supreme Court in Bronx County denied these motions on two separate occasions. The Appellate Court unanimously affirmed the denial of summary judgment, holding that the former managing agent could be held liable for affirmative acts of negligence if it managed the premises when the defective ramp was built. Additionally, the court found that the Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity provisions did not apply since the appellant had no connection with the building at the time of the plaintiff’s injury.

Personal InjuryBuilding MaintenanceRamp DefectNegligenceSummary Judgment DenialManaging Agent LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityPremises LiabilityAffirmative NegligenceDesign and Construction Defect
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tannenbaum v. Hofbauer

The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal of their complaint, which sought damages for an alleged assault and battery perpetrated by unidentified men acting under the direction of Powers, a business agent of the defendant union during a strike. The plaintiff's evidence indicated the tortious act was committed by a union agent in furtherance of the strike. However, there was no evidence of official union authorization for the act, nor was the agent's unlawful activity sufficiently notorious or prolonged to infer knowledge and acquiescence from the union membership. Citing established precedent, the court reiterated that to hold a voluntary, unincorporated association liable, facts must prove all members are liable, either through a public act of the association or member-approved acts of its agents. The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to bind the entire union membership, requiring clear and convincing evidence to identify the union with the individual acts. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to set aside the dismissal was denied.

Assault and BatteryUnion LiabilityAgency LawVoluntary Unincorporated AssociationMembership LiabilityStrike ActionTortious ActDismissal of ComplaintMotion PracticeEvidence Sufficiency
References
4
Case No. ADJ884160 (LBO 0394637)
Regular
Mar 08, 2013

Shahdeh Khodawandi vs. Disneyland Resort

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order dismissing lien claimant Dr. Thomas's lien claim. The dismissal occurred after Dr. Thomas and his then-agent failed to appear at a lien conference and a subsequent Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOI) was not properly served on his agent. The Appeals Board found the petition for reconsideration timely as the dismissal order was not properly served on Dr. Thomas's agent of record. Furthermore, the dismissal order was issued prematurely, before the full 35-day period for a response to the NOI had expired, even with the mail-delay extension. The case is returned to the trial level to determine if Dr. Thomas has good cause to set aside the NOI.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ConferenceCompromise and ReleaseNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienGood CauseService of ProcessAgent of Record
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Menin v. Tully

The petitioner, an estate planner and life insurance agent, sought to review a State Tax Commission determination sustaining a deficiency assessment for unincorporated business taxes for various years between 1964 and 1974. The respondent concluded that the petitioner was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Petitioner worked under an agent’s career contract for New England Life Insurance Company and its general agent, but also sold insurance for other principals and operated with considerable independence, including maintaining his own office and incurring substantial business expenses. The court affirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the petitioner was an independent contractor and therefore subject to the unincorporated business tax.

unincorporated business taxindependent contractorinsurance agentState Tax Commissiontax assessmentCPLR Article 78employer controlbusiness expensestax deficiencyappellate review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2005

People v. White

This case involves a hearing to determine the legality of a vehicle stop, subsequent detention, and warrantless arrest of defendant White for first-degree criminal possession of marihuana. Border Patrol agents stopped White at a temporary checkpoint in St. Lawrence County, New York. After secondary questioning and observing what they deemed suspicious behavior, agents detained White for approximately 50 minutes awaiting a drug-detecting dog. The dog alerted on White's vehicle, leading to the discovery of marihuana in the trunk and his arrest. The court, presided over by Justice Kathleen M. Rogers, found that while the initial checkpoint stop was valid, the prolonged detention of 50 minutes was unreasonable due to the agents lacking a founded suspicion of criminal activity.

Border Patrol checkpointFourth AmendmentUnreasonable detentionMotion to suppressDrug interdictionReasonable suspicionProbable causeVehicle stopDog sniff searchTemporary checkpoint
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 460 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