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
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers

This case addresses a motion by the defendant, Seafarers International Union, to dismiss the third cause of action in a complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to induce its employees to violate a collective bargaining agreement and engage in a secondary boycott, thereby forcing the plaintiff to cease doing business with another entity. The core legal question is whether a conspiracy to commit acts prohibited by Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 187), which targets secondary boycotts, is actionable. The court reviewed previous Supreme Court decisions affirming the broad scope of Section 303. Ultimately, the court concluded that the third cause of action adequately states a claim for relief under Section 303. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottConspiracyMotion to DismissLabor Management Relations ActCollective BargainingFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationUnion Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prendeville v. United States

This case involves a plaintiff suing the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained by John Prendeville at a VA Hospital, leading to paralysis. The defendants moved to dismiss the first cause of action, arguing that the plaintiff's complaint was untimely under the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations, claiming the cause of action accrued shortly after Prendeville's injury in September 1981. The court examined the accrual of a claim under the FTCA, which requires the plaintiff to discover both the injury and its cause. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was a factual dispute regarding when the plaintiff or Prendeville's family became aware of the alleged cause of the injury, potentially due to misleading statements from medical personnel.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatute of LimitationsMedical MalpracticeAccrual of ClaimSummary Judgment MotionSpinal Cord InjuryVA Hospital NegligenceWrongful Death ClaimIntubation ComplicationsDiscovery Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. Medford Plaza Associates, Ltd.

Guy Graziano, an employee of Coca-Cola Company, sustained personal injuries after falling in a parking lot and received workers' compensation benefits. His insurance carrier initiated Action No. 2, as assignee, against prior property owners and managing agents after notifying Graziano of the assignment of his claim if he failed to sue within 30 days. Separately, Guy and Maureen Graziano commenced Action No. 1 against prior owners and the current owner, 210 West 29th Street Corp. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Grazianos' action, ruling their claims were assigned to the carrier. On appeal, the order was modified: the dismissal of Action No. 1 was denied, and both actions were consolidated. The appellate court concluded that the carrier had waived its rights as an assignee against 210 West 29th Street Corp. by failing to pursue a claim against them.

Workers' Compensation LawAssignment of ClaimsPersonal InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsConsolidation of ActionsAppellate ReviewInsurance SubrogationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larrier v. Miller

This case involves an action brought by a plaintiff against a defendant union seeking damages for assault and battery. The union filed a motion to dismiss the first cause of action alleged in the amended complaint. The court affirmed the order denying the union's motion to dismiss, insofar as appealed from. Additionally, the plaintiff was granted leave to serve a second amended complaint concerning the second cause of action within ten days from the entry of the order.

Assault and BatteryMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintUnion LiabilityDamagesCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsPanel DecisionLeave to Amend
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Cooper (In Re Cooper)

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion by The Cadle Company, an individual creditor, seeking authorization to prosecute the Chapter 7 estate's causes of action, specifically a Section 542 turnover action and state law fraud claims. The motion was opposed by the debtors, Gary R. and Junanne M. Cooper, and conditionally by the Chapter 7 Trustee. The court analyzes whether an individual creditor in a Chapter 7 case can be granted independent or derivative standing to pursue estate causes of action, distinguishing between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 contexts. The court concludes there is no textual basis in the Bankruptcy Code for such standing in a Chapter 7 case, noting the unique role of the Chapter 7 trustee as an independent fiduciary without the conflicts of interest often present in Chapter 11. Even if such power existed, the court finds Cadle did not present a compelling argument, as the Trustee had exercised business judgment in attempting to settle the claims. The court ultimately DENIES Cadle's Standing Motion, stating that while Cadle can pursue its independent Section 727(d) action, it cannot usurp the Trustee's role.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyDerivative StandingCreditor StandingTrustee AuthorityEstate Causes of ActionAvoidance ActionsBankruptcy Code InterpretationEquitable PowersJudicial DiscretionMotion Denied
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell v. Kandler

This case involves an appeal concerning a plaintiff's fall while washing exterior windows of a commercial building, leading to a Labor Law § 202 cause of action. An earlier order had granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, finding multiple triable issues of fact. These issues include whether the building owner mandated window cleaning, tacitly approved the plaintiff's work, acknowledged the subtenancy, provided safe interior window washing options, and if the building's anchor hooks met Industrial Code standards. The reversal means the plaintiff's cause of action can proceed.

Window Washing AccidentSummary Judgment ReversalLabor Law ComplianceBuilding Owner LiabilityIndustrial Code ViolationsTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury ClaimSafety RegulationsPremises Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zimmer-Thomson Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

The employer filed an action against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and a union, seeking to set aside the union's certification as the exclusive bargaining representative and to restrain the union from taking further action before the National War Labor Board (NWLB). The employer alleged procedural flaws in the election process, including uncounted challenged ballots and denial of opportunity to be heard. Both defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review NLRB certifications, which are only informatory. Furthermore, it found that NWLB directives are merely advisory and thus cause no irreparable injury. Consequently, the court denied the employer's motion for a temporary injunction and dismissed the complaint, finding no cause of action.

Labor LawNLRB CertificationJudicial ReviewInjunctionCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticesWar Labor BoardChallenged BallotsDistrict Court JurisdictionAdministrative Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Farrell

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal in a legal malpractice action. Defendant James P. Farrell, Jr., a lawyer, represented Six G’s Contracting Corp. in a personal injury action. Farrell failed to timely notify the State Insurance Fund (SIF) of a third-party action against Six G’s, leading SIF to disclaim coverage. Six G’s assigned its malpractice claim to Joseph Gazza and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court denied Farrell’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court’s order, concluding that the complaint sufficiently stated elements of legal malpractice and that the issue of SIF's waiver of disclaimer was a question of fact, not determinable as a matter of law.

Legal MalpracticeProfessional NegligenceInsurance DisclaimerSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAssignment of ClaimWorkers' CompensationIndemnificationAppellate ReviewCausation
References
7
Case No. 2014-827 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2017

Compas Med., P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court regarding a provider's action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Plaintiff, Compas Medical, P.C., sought summary judgment, while defendant, 21st Century Insurance Company, cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss several causes of action. The Appellate Term modified the Civil Court's order by denying the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action, noting the defendant's failure to establish a timely denial. However, the plaintiff also failed to prove entitlement to summary judgment on this claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of the first and fifth causes of action, finding that the defendant had adequately paid for services according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. A triable issue of fact was identified concerning whether the defendant received the claims for the remaining causes of action.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentTimely denialFee schedule defenseWorkers' compensationAppellate reviewCivil Court orderCauses of actionInsurance claimsProcedural appeal
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 15,050 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