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. 2017 NY Slip Op 04412
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2017

Aprile-Sci v. St. Raymond of Penyafort R.C. Church

Kathleen Aprile-Sci, a volunteer Eucharistic Minister, allegedly tripped and fell at St. Raymond of Penyafort R.C. Church. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determined her injury was work-related and she was entitled to benefits, a decision she did not object to. Subsequently, Aprile-Sci and her husband commenced a personal injury action against the church. The church moved for summary judgment based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the WCB's final and conclusive determination barred a collateral attack in a plenary action.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusivity DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewVolunteer StatusPersonal Injury ClaimWCB DeterminationCollateral AttackTriable Issues of FactDiocese Insurance
References
13
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.

The plaintiff, Genesco, Inc., a shoe manufacturer, sued Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, alleging four causes of action. The first cause of action claimed a breach of collective bargaining agreements and a no-strike clause. The second alleged violations of Section 303 of the L.M.R.A. by inducing other employers to cease doing business with Genesco. The third and fourth causes of action were common law torts alleging inducement of other labor organizations to breach contracts and a scheme to destroy Genesco's business. The court dismissed the first cause of action, finding no valid contract existed at the time of the strike. The second cause of action survived dismissal, while the third and fourth causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend, as they were deemed arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionPreemptionPendent JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. ADJ6905551
Regular
May 24, 2010

Donald Laytham vs. SUTTER CENTER FOR PSYCHIATRY

This case concerns whether an industrial injury claim was barred as post-termination under Labor Code § 3600(a)(10). The applicant faxed a claim form on April 10, 2009, before receiving his termination notice on April 14, 2009, which was dated April 10, 2009, and mailed April 13, 2009. The Board affirmed the finding that the employer had sufficient notice of the injury prior to termination via the faxed claim form. Therefore, the claim was not barred as post-termination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactIndustrial InjuryFacilities and Project CoordinatorClaim FormPost Termination ClaimLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code Section 5401(c)Labor Code Section 5402(a)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 1982

Naples v. Daubert Chemical Co.

This case involves multiple motions for a change of venue. An order entered June 23, 1981, denying defendant’s motion for a change of venue to Richmond County, was affirmed. An appeal from an order entered April 28, 1982, which denied a motion to change venue to Orange County, was dismissed as superseded. Finally, an order entered November 12, 1982, denying defendant’s motion for renewal of the April 28, 1982 order, was reversed. Upon renewal, the motion to change venue to Orange County was granted, as there was no nexus between New York County and the cause of action, and the accident occurred in Orange County where the plaintiff resided.

Change of VenueDiscretionary RulingSitus of ActionPlaintiff's ResidenceAttorney ConvenienceAppellate ReviewMotion for RenewalSupreme CourtNew York CountyOrange County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2000

Claim of Davis v. T.J. Madden Construction Co.

Claimant suffered two work-related knee injuries in 1988 and 1992, leading to separate compensation cases. In April 1999, an application to reopen the 1988 case was filed, supported by a medical report indicating a change in the claimant's condition. The carrier for the 1988 case sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and requested reopening of the 1992 case. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Law Judge's decision, discharging the Special Fund from liability and placing Travelers Property Casualty (1992 carrier) back on notice. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the April 1999 medical report, despite explicitly referencing only the 1988 case, constituted sufficient notice to reopen the interconnected 1992 case within the seven-year statutory period.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftStatute of LimitationsMedical Report as NoticeChange in ConditionKnee InjuryApportionmentBoard DecisionAppeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. P.S.G. Construction Co.

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund obtained a judgment against Bridgeworks for unpaid workers' compensation premiums. Bridgeworks, prior to its dissolution and without satisfying the judgment, made loans to FSG Construction Co., Inc. The Commissioners then commenced a special proceeding against FSG, alleging the loans were fraudulent under Debtor and Creditor Law § 273-a. The Supreme Court denied the petition, citing the six-year statute of limitations. This appellate court reversed that decision, ruling that the statute of limitations began from the date of judgment entry (April 24, 2009), making the proceeding commenced on April 13, 2010, timely. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the merits.

Statute of LimitationsFraudulent ConveyanceDebtor and Creditor LawWorkers' Compensation PremiumsUnpaid LoansAppellate ReviewJudgment EnforcementKings CountySpecial ProceedingConstructive Fraud
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2011

Turner v. City of New York

Petitioner was injured on April 14, 2009, and initially believed their claim was covered by Workers' Compensation, delaying legal counsel until July 13, 2010. Counsel promptly served a notice of claim and sought an order to deem it timely filed nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted this motion. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed the decision, ruling that the application made on July 14, 2010, was untimely. The court determined that the one-year and 90-day limitations period, as outlined in General Municipal Law § 50-i (1) and General Construction Law §§ 20, 58, had expired on July 13, 2010, rendering the application one day too late.

Notice of ClaimTimelinessNunc Pro TuncGeneral Municipal LawGeneral Construction LawLimitations PeriodAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationTort ActionMunicipality
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,247 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