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. Docket No. 10
Regular Panel Decision

Zhong v. August August Corp.

Plaintiff Jian Zhong filed a class action against defendant August August Corp. alleging denial of overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Minimum Wage Act (NYMWA). Defendant August filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the FLSA overtime claims and related state law claims, but denied it in part, allowing the FLSA minimum wage claims and related state law claims to proceed. Plaintiff Zhong was granted leave to amend the complaint to address the deficiencies in the dismissed claims.

FLSANYMWAWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage ViolationMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) MotionLeave to AmendClass Action PotentialSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. ADJ7562564 ADJ7962683
Regular
Nov 04, 2014

RICHARD ORR vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation appeal where the employer sought reconsideration of a prior award. The primary issues were a clerical error in the temporary disability (TD) indemnity rate and the duration of TD benefits. The Board granted reconsideration to correct the TD rate to $601.67 and amended the TD period from August 12, 2011, to August 12, 2013, applying the 104-week limit under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2). The Board affirmed the finding that the injury was to the applicant's psyche.

Pelican Bay State Prisoncorrectional cook supervisorindustrial injurypsychehypertensiontachycardiatemporary disability indemnityLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)104 compensable weeksclerical error
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02142 [182 AD3d 670]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2020

Matter of Narine v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.

Claimant Millicent Narine appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially denied her application for review of a WCLJ decision due to alleged non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13(b), which mandates complete filling of form RB-89 for administrative review. Subsequently, the Board denied her request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board abused its discretion. It determined that Narine's responses to questions 11, 12, and 15 on form RB-89 adequately identified the contested ruling and the exception, thus fulfilling the requirements of 12 NYCRR 300.13(b)(2)(ii). Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's August 1, 2018 decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, while dismissing the appeal from the October 2, 2018 decision as academic.

Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ)Administrative ReviewForm RB-8912 NYCRR 300.13(b)Procedural ComplianceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewClaimant RepresentationApplication for ReviewReconsideration Denial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Wolfson

The claimant, a school teacher, appealed a December 3, 1975 decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a referee's determination that he was ineligible for Special Unemployment Assistance benefits due to not being totally unemployed. Despite working only 10 months, the claimant was paid a 12-month salary, with payments for July and August 1975 deferred until December. He contended that these months did not constitute a paid vacation period under Labor Law § 591(3) because payment was delayed beyond 30 days. However, the court disagreed, citing precedent that teachers paid annually for 12 months are not considered totally unemployed during their non-working months, irrespective of the payment schedule. The court further held that Labor Law § 591 does not apply to situations where a claimant's salary is based on a 12-month period and paid for each of those months. Finding substantial evidence to support the board's determination, the court affirmed the decision.

Unemployment InsuranceSpecial Unemployment Assistance ProgramTotal UnemploymentSchool TeacherPaid VacationLabor Law § 59112-month SalaryBenefit EligibilityAppeal Board DecisionAffirmed Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dumas v. Agency for Child Development-New York City Head Start

Plaintiff Dumas was discharged from her employment as director of the Head Start program operated by defendants The Children’s Aid Society (CAS) and the Agency for Child Development. She filed a pro se complaint alleging employment discrimination based on race and sex, citing violations of federal statutes and asserting state law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that federal claims were time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations, as the discharge occurred on August 15, 1975, and the action was filed on August 12, 1981. Dumas contended the statute was tolled due to mental disability ("insanity") under New York CPLR § 208, claiming it persisted until August 1978. The court, however, found Dumas's activities, including holding a supervisory job and seeing patients as a therapist, inconsistent with the severe incapacitation required for the insanity toll. Dr. Stephenson's medical report also did not support a finding of continuous incapacitation. Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint.

Employment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsMental Disability TollInsanity TollCPLR 208Federal Claims DismissalState Law ClaimsHead Start ProgramRace DiscriminationSex Discrimination
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kenneth V.

This is an appeal from a Family Court order that found respondent August V., Ill neglected his children. The proceeding was initiated by the petitioner, alleging neglect due to the parents' refusal to accept intensive counseling for two children exhibiting aggressive behavior, including wielding a knife. The Family Court initially found the father neglected all seven children. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no evidence of parental misconduct by the father. The court determined that treatment recommendations were not directly communicated to the father, and he was unaware of the escalated fighting. Consequently, the petition against August V., Ill was dismissed due to insufficient proof of neglect.

NeglectChild protectionParental misconductFamily lawChild welfareAbuseErie CountyAppellate reviewParental responsibilityMental health services
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05331
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2016

People v. Bonie

This case involves an appeal by nonparty News 12 The Bronx, L.L.C., and its representative Dina Sforza, against an order compelling compliance with a subpoena for unaired video footage. The People sought the footage from an interview with defendant Nasean Bonie, who was indicted for the murder of Ramona Moore. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted the People's motion to compel, directing an in camera review and denying News 12's cross-motion to quash the subpoena. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order. It directed disclosure only of specific portions of the video footage where Bonie discusses killing the victim or their relationship, finding that the People met the necessary showing under New York's Shield Law for these parts, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision. The court clarified that the trial judge need not issue further findings.

Subpoena enforcementJournalistic privilegeShield LawNonconfidential materialIn camera reviewCircumstantial evidenceMurder indictmentVideo footageAppellate reviewFreedom of the press
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kotlyarsky v. New York Post

Plaintiffs Boris and Alla Kotlyarsky and Reliable Rehabilitation Center, Inc. sued defendants New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, and Devlin Barrett for libel. The action stemmed from a December 11, 2000 article in the New York Post that alleged Boris Kotlyarsky was under federal indictment and described Reliable Rehabilitation Center as a 'medical mill.' Plaintiffs claimed they were promised a retraction, which was later withdrawn, leading them to delay filing their lawsuit until August 12, 2002. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the one-year statute of limitations for libel had expired on December 12, 2001. Plaintiffs invoked equitable estoppel, equitable tolling, and promissory estoppel to argue the statute was tolled. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the retraction and thus, the doctrines of estoppel or tolling were not applicable. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

defamationlibelstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelequitable tollingpromissory estoppelsummary judgmentdue diligenceretractionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. No. 11, No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2019

Lilya Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care , Adriana Moreno v. Future Care Health Services

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a common issue in two joint appeals: whether home health care aides on 24-hour shifts must be paid for each hour. The Department of Labor (DOL) interpreted its Wage Order (12 NYCRR part 142) to allow payment for at least 13 hours if the employee receives at least 8 hours for sleep (with 5 uninterrupted) and 3 hours for meals. The Appellate Division rejected this, but the Court of Appeals reversed, deferring to DOL's interpretation as rational and consistent with the Wage Order's plain language. The cases were remitted for lower courts to evaluate class certification issues in accordance with DOL's interpretation.

Home Health Care24-Hour ShiftsMinimum Wage ActWage OrderDepartment of Labor InterpretationClass CertificationAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsSleep BreaksMeal Breaks
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 1,712 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