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
Mar 24, 2004

Chao v. Duncan (Duncan)

This case involves a motion for summary judgment filed by Eugene Duncan, the Debtor, in an adversary proceeding initiated by the Secretary of Labor (DOL). Duncan, who filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11 (later converted to chapter 7), seeks to discharge a debt arising from a Consent Judgment. The DOL's complaint aims to establish the non-dischargeability of this debt under section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, alleging fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, related to his role in the International Workers’ Guild Health and Welfare Trust, which was subject to ERISA. Duncan's motion for summary judgment argues that the DOL lacked standing and the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Plan was not an ERISA plan, and that the Secretary cannot demonstrate a breach of fiduciary duties. The Bankruptcy Court denied Duncan's motion, concluding that the Secretary has standing and that res judicata prevents relitigation of the District Court's jurisdiction and the Secretary's standing, given that Duncan had the opportunity to raise these issues in the prior District Court action.

BankruptcySummary JudgmentNon-dischargeability of DebtERISA ViolationsFiduciary DutyFraudDefalcationRes JudicataSubject Matter JurisdictionStanding
References
48
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06847 [165 AD3d 1377]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Matter of Duncan v. Crucible Metals

Linda Duncan, widow of William Duncan, applied for workers' compensation death benefits after her husband's death from lung cancer, allegedly due to occupational asbestos exposure while employed by Crucible Metals. New Hampshire Insurance Company, a carrier, failed to appear at hearings and was deemed liable, incurring a penalty. New Hampshire Insurance challenged its liability and the penalty, claiming it covered Crucible Industries, Inc., not Crucible Metals, and its non-appearance was inadvertent. The Workers' Compensation Board denied their application for review as untimely. New Hampshire Insurance's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was also denied, leading to this appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, limiting its inquiry to whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, finding no such issues.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsOccupational ExposureAsbestosLung CancerTimeliness of AppealReconsiderationBoard ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and Capricious
References
6
Case No. ADJ4130333
Regular
Dec 15, 2010

ANDREA DUNCAN vs. PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order denies the Petition for Removal filed by Andrea Duncan. The Board reviewed the petition and the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. Finding no basis for removal, the Board adopted the judge's reasoning and denied the petition. The order was filed on December 15, 2010.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDeny RemovalADJ4130333Pasadena Unified School DistrictAndrea DuncanLAO District OfficeSan FranciscoService by Mail
References
0
Case No. No. 53
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2019

Pangea Capital Management, LLC v. John R. Lakian

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a certified question from the Second Circuit concerning the priority of a spouse's interest in real property after a divorce judgment. Pangea Capital Management, LLC, a judgment creditor of John Lakian, sought to attach property, arguing its docketed judgment had priority over Andrea Lakian's undocketed divorce judgment, which awarded her a share of the property. The Court clarified that an equitable distribution of marital property upon divorce does not transform the spouse into a judgment creditor of the other. Consequently, CPLR 5203 (a), which governs priority among judgment creditors, was deemed inapplicable, thus affirming that Andrea's vested interest was not subordinate to Pangea's attachment.

Equitable distributionMarital propertyDivorce judgmentJudgment creditorCPLR 5203DocketingReal propertyAttachmentCertified questionSecond Circuit
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alanna M. v. Duncan M.

Judge Miller's dissenting opinion argues that the Supreme Court's custody determination, which granted custody to the father, lacks a sound and substantial basis. The dissent asserts that the children's best interests would be served by transferring custody to the mother, a view shared by the court-appointed child psychiatrist, Michael's therapist, and the Law Guardian. It highlights the father's admitted abusive behavior, Michael's fear, and criticizes the court's disregard for expert opinions and the child's preference. The opinion also notes the temporary nature of the initial custody agreement and the mother's consistent involvement, suggesting a custody change would not be disruptive.

Custody DisputeChild CustodyDissenting OpinionBest Interests of ChildExpert TestimonyChild Abuse AllegationsParental FitnessPsychological EvaluationChild's PreferenceJudicial Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Payne v. Meeks

Andrea Payne, a former caseworker for U.S. Representative Gregory Meeks, sued Meeks and his Employing Office after her employment was terminated. Payne alleged she was retaliated against for filing a lawsuit against Flowers Physical Therapy and Neville Flowers, where she was sexually assaulted during medical leave. She claimed violations of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) and First Amendment rights. Meeks moved to dismiss Count II of the amended complaint, arguing the CAA's comprehensive remedial scheme precluded a Bivens claim and that her lawsuit was not a matter of public concern. The court granted Meeks's motion, finding the CAA a 'special factor counseling hesitation' against creating a Bivens remedy and that Payne's lawsuit was primarily for personal redress, not public concern.

Congressional Accountability ActFirst AmendmentBivens ClaimRetaliationEmployment LawFederal EmployeeMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionPublic ConcernLegislative Branch
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shine v. Duncan Petroleum Transport, Inc.

Chief Judge Cooke concurs with the majority's reasoning and result, adding an additional ground for reversal. The Workers’ Compensation Board had previously determined Five Boro to be the decedents' employer. Duncan Petroleum claimed co-employer status, asserting it was an alter ego of Five Boro. Judge Cooke emphasized that the question of whether companies are alter egos, requiring the piercing of the corporate veil, is a matter for the courts to decide, as it concerns the legal identity and relationship of corporations, not merely the availability of workers' compensation, thus not requiring mandatory deferral to the Board.

Workers' Compensation BoardAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate Veil PiercingEmployer StatusCo-employerJudicial ReviewDeference to Administrative AgenciesWorkers' Compensation Law
References
1
Case No. ADJ913909
Regular
Nov 15, 2010

MARTIN DUNCAN vs. COCA COLA, CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a finding of permanent and total disability for applicant Martin Duncan due to an admitted industrial injury. The Board found the administrative law judge's decision lacked substantial medical evidence, particularly regarding the impact of applicant's medications on his ability to work. The case is remanded for further development of the record, specifically to obtain an updated medical opinion from the Agreed Medical Evaluator on the effect of current medications and apportionment.

Agreed medical evaluatorPermanent disabilityApportionmentVocational rehabilitationSubstantial evidenceMedical opinionIndustrial injuryWork restrictionsAdverse medication effectsCompensability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

K.D. ex rel. Duncan v. White Plains School District

Plaintiffs K.D. (a developmentally disabled adult) and her mother Kerry Kelly Duncan sued the White Plains School District (WPSD) and several individual defendants. The claims stemmed from an incident where K.D. was interviewed by police at school, without parental consent, after reporting an alleged assault by her brother. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, conspiracy, supervisory liability, gross negligence, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all federal claims, including § 1983 and § 1985 conspiracy claims, Fourth Amendment claims (due to qualified immunity and lack of clearly established rights for in-school interviews of adults), and procedural/substantive due process claims (as K.D. was an adult and the interview did not constitute a deprivation of custody or conscience-shocking conduct). Remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to the absence of federal claims.

Fourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessQualified ImmunityMotion to DismissSchool InterviewChild Abuse InvestigationSection 1983Section 1985Conspiracy
References
97
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00346 [135 AD3d 837]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2016

Mullen v. Helen Keller Services for the Blind

Andrea Mullen, the injured plaintiff, alleged that she tripped and fell over a treadmill at the defendant's facility in Hempstead while training. She filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the treadmill was an open and obvious condition and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentOpen and Obvious ConditionNegligenceDuty of CareReasonably Safe ConditionTriable Issue of FactAppellate ReviewSlip and Fall
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 55 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