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. 17 NY3d 238
Regular Panel Decision

The People v. Jarrod Brown

Judge Read's dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of CPL 440.46, as amended by Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2011. The majority expanded resentencing eligibility to include parolees due to a name change from 'Department of Correctional Services' to 'Department of Corrections and Community Supervision'. Read contends that this amendment was merely a technical change reflecting an agency merger, not a substantive legislative intent to broaden resentencing relief, which should remain limited to incarcerated persons as per the original 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. The dissent emphasizes that statutory text should be interpreted within its context, highlighting that the 2011 amendment was part of an article VII budget bill for restructuring and technical corrections, not substantive law changes. Therefore, Read believes the legislature did not intend to expand the ameliorative sweep of the provision.

Resentencing EligibilityCPL 440.46Drug Law Reform ActParoleesIncarcerated PersonsStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentChapter 62 Laws of 2011Technical AmendmentSubstantive Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyle v. Texasgulf Aviation, Inc.

This opinion by District Judge Goettel addresses motions within the long-standing "Texasgulf cases," stemming from a 1981 corporate aircraft crash, primarily focusing on a workers' compensation lien. Plaintiff Boyle moved to extinguish or reduce a lien held by Zurich-American Insurance Companies, while Texasgulf cross-moved to amend pleadings to join as a plaintiff to apportion damages under Connecticut law. The court determined that Connecticut law governs the workers' compensation lien issues for the Connecticut residents involved, denying the plaintiffs' request for New York law. However, Texasgulf's motion to amend its pleadings was denied due to undue and unjustified delay of over four years since a key jury finding establishing its corporate independence from TGA, and after all appeals and settlements had concluded. The court emphasized that allowing such a late amendment would be contrary to judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments, despite the ambiguity of Connecticut's statutory notice requirements.

Workers' Compensation LienChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawRule 15 AmendmentUndue DelayPrejudiceCorporate VeilWrongful Death StatuteAircraft Crash Litigation
References
24
Case No. AHM 0118031; AHM 0118045; AHM 0118046; AHM 0118048; AHM 0118050; AHM 0118332
Regular
May 13, 2008

NHIEN TRAN vs. CARGOTEC, INC., EMPLOYERS SELFINSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an award of $\$ 2,217.50$ for medical treatment, finding the original decision supported by substantial evidence including an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion and fee schedule limitations. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's amended petition for reconsideration as untimely filed, noting it was received after the statutory deadline. Furthermore, a supplemental amended petition was dismissed as unauthorized under Appeals Board rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings & Award & OrderAdministrative Law JudgeACOEM GuidelinesCompromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical ExaminerOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLabor Code section 4604.5
References
4
Case No. 03-92677
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

Enron filed a motion for reargument under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, seeking reconsideration of a May 2, 2006 opinion that denied its motion to amend its complaint to add Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc. as a defendant. Enron argued that the court overlooked Lehman's misrepresentation regarding named defendants, which constituted concealment under Rule 15(c)(3). The court found that Enron had sufficient information to name Lehman Japan and that its reliance on Lehman's statement was not reasonable. The court also denied considering new arguments raised by Enron as they were not timely. Ultimately, the court denied Enron's request for relief under Rule 9023, concluding that no material facts were overlooked, new arguments were untimely, and no manifest injustice occurred.

Bankruptcy Rule 9023Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3)Relation-Back DoctrineAmendment of ComplaintMistake in IdentityConcealmentMisrepresentationReasonable RelianceEquitable TollingFraudulent Concealment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2003

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Horinko

This Amended Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case brought by various environmental and animal rights organizations against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Plaintiffs challenged EPA's voluntary High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program, asserting violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and sought injunctive relief. The court granted the EPA's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims alleging ultra vires action and FACA violations, finding that EPA did not exceed its authority or establish an advisory committee under FACA. However, both parties' motions for summary judgment concerning the TSCA claim were denied without prejudice due to insufficient factual record. Additionally, Plaintiffs' request for further discovery was denied, resulting in a decision that largely favored the defendant on the resolved claims.

Environmental LawToxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)Summary JudgmentAdministrative LawRegulatory ComplianceChemical TestingHigh Production Volume (HPV) ChemicalsAnimal RightsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tufts v. Corporation of Lloyd's

This AMENDED OPINION and ORDER addresses a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, The Corporation of Lloyd’s, in an independent action brought by a group of investors referred to as "Plaintiffs." The Plaintiffs sought relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) from a prior judgment in Roby v. The Corporation of Lloyd’s, which had dismissed their claims based on forum selection and choice of law clauses in their contracts with Lloyd's. They alleged newly discovered evidence of fraud by Lloyd's in procuring these clauses, claiming Lloyd's intentionally concealed massive asbestos-related liabilities and revised contracts to prevent U.S. lawsuits. Presiding District Judge Keenan granted Lloyd's motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs' evidence failed to demonstrate a direct link between Lloyd's' knowledge of liabilities and an intent to fraudulently procure the choice clauses, nor did it show affirmative misrepresentations. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' second cause of action for a declaratory judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)Motion to DismissFraudulent ProcurementForum Selection ClauseChoice of Law ClauseNewly Discovered EvidenceSecurities Law ViolationsInvestment FraudRes JudicataIndependent Action
References
29
Case No. ADJ3481462 (OAK 0297878)
Regular
Sep 24, 2009

KATHRYN MILLS vs. BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding industrial injury to the applicant's left upper extremity and shoulder, causing temporary disability and need for further medical care. The applicant's treating physician, Dr. Nolan, provided opinions regarding her left shoulder and other body parts, while Dr. Cabayan also provided opinions on the left shoulder and other extremities. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the award, clarifying that future medical care is consistent with Dr. Cabayan's opinions for the left shoulder and Dr. Nolan's opinions for other body parts. The Board affirmed the award with this specific amendment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryInstructional AssistantLeft Upper ExtremityCompensable ConsequenceTemporary DisabilityFurther Medical CareSubstantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Formal Opinion No.

This opinion from the Chairman of the New York Workers' Compensation Board addresses the priority of income execution and income deduction orders, established by the 1985 Support Enforcement Act (CPLR §§ 5241, 5242), against other statutory deductions from workers' compensation awards. Historically, WCL § 33 provided broad exemptions for workers' compensation benefits. However, WCL §§ 206(2) and 25(4)(a) allow for reimbursement of disability insurers and employers for advance payments, respectively, and WCL § 24 establishes liens for attorneys' fees, traditionally enjoying highest priority. The 1985 Act amended WCL § 33 to make benefits subject to support enforcement and also stipulated that income executions and deduction orders take priority over other assignments, levies, or processes. The Board concluded that claims for attorneys' fees and reimbursements by disability insurance carriers and employers are to be deducted first from the workers' compensation award. The support enforcement remedies under CPLR §§ 5241 and 5242 then apply to the balance of the workers' compensation benefits paid to the employee. This approach ensures prompt payment to injured workers and prevents double payment issues.

Workers' CompensationSupport Enforcement ActIncome ExecutionIncome DeductionLien PriorityStatutory InterpretationDisability Benefits ReimbursementEmployer ReimbursementAttorneys' Fees PriorityCPLR 5241
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bright-Asante v. Saks & Co.

Plaintiff Michael Bright-Asante brought an action against Saks & Company, Inc., Theo Christ, and Local 1102, alleging employment discrimination, breach of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), retaliation, and constructive discharge. The court addressed three motions: Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, Saks' motion for sanctions, and Saks' motion to compel arbitration and/or dismiss the complaint. The court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and Saks' motion for sanctions, citing that the motion to amend was not "utterly lacking in support." Saks' motion to compel arbitration for the breach of CBA claim was granted, while arbitration for statutory discrimination claims was denied, as the CBA did not clearly mandate it. Finally, the court granted Saks' motion to dismiss the race discrimination (NYCHRL) and retaliation (NYLL) claims but denied the motion to dismiss the constructive discharge claim, finding sufficient facts for the latter.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationConstructive DischargeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementRule 15 MotionRule 11 SanctionsRule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissSection 1981NYCHRL
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Heights—West Harlem—Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. v. District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, RWDSU

This District Court opinion addresses motions by the Washington Heights Mental Health Council to amend its complaint and by District 1199 to enforce an arbitration award. Previously, the court vacated an award reinstating Edward Lane with back pay, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. The court now finds an oral collective bargaining agreement existed, generally requiring enforcement of the arbitration award. However, new serious allegations against Lane, if proven, could justify discharge. A strong public policy against reinstating a mental health worker accused of sexually molesting patients warrants staying his reinstatement pending arbitration of these new claims. Despite this, the court orders the Council to comply with the back pay portion of the arbitration award, finding no public policy violation in that aspect.

Arbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementBack PayReinstatement StayedSexual Misconduct AllegationsPublic Policy ExceptionLabor DisputeAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRemand Order
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 20,500 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