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. ADJ883280 (POM 0291224)
Regular
May 12, 2010

FERNANDO JIMENEZ vs. BEWLEY-ALLEN CADILLAC, HARCO INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

This case involves Fernando Jimenez's workers' compensation claim against Bewley-Allen Cadillac and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed Jimenez's Petition for Reconsideration. Citing the administrative law judge's report, the Board dismissed the petition. The final order is the dismissal of the Petition for Reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeDismissedBewley-Allen CadillacHarco InsuranceBroadspireADJ883280POM 0291224
References
0
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08369
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2014

Matter of Allen v. City of New York

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to annul the termination of petitioner Lionel Allen's employment by the City of New York. The court found that the City violated Allen's due process rights by initially terminating him under Civil Service Law § 73 for non-occupational injuries, then rescinding that and re-terminating him retroactively under Civil Service Law § 71 for occupational injuries, without offering a new opportunity to be heard. The decision highlighted the procedural differences between the two sections of the Civil Service Law, noting that Section 71 offers greater protections. The court also rejected the respondents' suggestion to order a hearing to determine Allen's fitness, stating it would nullify the due process holding.

Due ProcessEmployment TerminationCivil Service LawOccupational InjuryNon-Occupational InjuryReinstatementArticle 78 PetitionRetroactive TerminationProcedural ProtectionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peninsula National Bank v. Allen Carpet Shops, Inc. (In Re Allen Carpet Shops, Inc.)

The creditors' committee moved for reargument and reconsideration of a previous court decision that granted summary judgment in favor of Peninsula National Bank (PNB) against Allen Carpet Shops, Inc., the debtor in a Chapter 11 reorganization. PNB sought administrative priority for various payroll account overdrafts. The court reaffirmed the summary judgment for a $19,545.16 portion of PNB's claim and clarified that a $12,684.17 pre-petition overdraft constituted a general unsecured claim. However, the court identified several unanswered material facts concerning a $37,892.92 portion of PNB's claim, which involved checks drawn pre-petition but honored post-petition. Consequently, the court warranted a rehearing specifically on this disputed portion of the claim, effectively granting the committee's motion for reargument in part.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingSummary JudgmentReargument MotionAdministrative Expense PriorityWage PriorityDebtor-in-PossessionOverdraftsCreditors' Committee
References
9
Case No. 222 AD3d 1134
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Allen v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Claimant Odaliris Allen appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which ruled that Workers' Compensation Law § 123 precluded an award of additional indemnity benefits. Allen sustained a work-related injury in 2000, and liability later transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. Despite subsequent amendments to her claim to include consequential ankle injuries and authorization for a surgical procedure, the Board affirmed that more than 18 years had passed since the injury and eight years since the last compensation payment, thus barring further awards. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the case was truly closed after a 2019 Workers' Compensation Law Judge decision and subsequent surgical authorization, making Workers' Compensation Law § 123 applicable.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial FundReopened CasesIndemnity BenefitsSchedule Loss of UseStatute of LimitationsAppellate DivisionCase ClosureInjury ClaimsAnkle Injury
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1995

Allen v. Blum

This case involves an appeal in two related actions seeking damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff, Leon Allen, an employee of Coca Cola Bottling Company, was injured by a moving service van after installing a replacement transmission. Defendants Brian Pechaska, as President of New York Coca Cola Distributors Association, and New York Coca Cola Distributors Association, appealed a Supreme Court order that denied their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint based on their vicarious liability under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the appellants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against them. The court reasoned that since Coca Cola Bottling and supervisor Michael Parise were immune from suit under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), the appellants could not be held vicariously liable as owners of the service van.

Personal InjuryVicarious LiabilityVehicle and Traffic LawWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyOwner LiabilityAutomobile AccidentWorkplace Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Latoya Allen sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits, child's insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. The U.S. District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, which found Plaintiff not disabled, applying a five-step sequential evaluation. Plaintiff argued the ALJ erred in weighing medical opinions, excluding attention and concentration limitations from the RFC, and rejecting a nurse practitioner's opinion. The Court, finding the Commissioner's determination supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error, upheld the ALJ's assessment of medical opinions and the RFC. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Plaintiff's motion was denied.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsChild's Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityMedical Opinion EvidenceNon-examining Medical SourceConsultative Examiner
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruane v. Allen-Stevenson School

In August 2005, plaintiff Edward Ruane, a sheet metal worker, suffered a knee injury from a slip and fall on construction debris. He sued The Allen-Stevenson School (owner) and F.J. Sciame Construction Co., Inc. and Sciame Development, Inc. (general contractors) for personal injury. F.J. Sciame filed a third-party action against Ruane's employer, Met Sales & Installations Corp., seeking indemnification based on an unsigned rider, which Met disputed. The court ruled that F.J. Sciame failed to provide prima facie evidence that the indemnification rider was part of the contract, denying their claim. Additionally, the motion court found that factual disputes regarding constructive notice prevented the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

personal injuryknee injuryconstruction accidentindemnificationgeneral contractor liabilitypremises liabilitycontractual disputesummary judgmentLabor Law 200constructive notice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ribis v. Mike Barnard Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc.

Plaintiff Crystal Ribis sued her former employer, Mike Barnard Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc., alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and New York State Human Rights Law. She claimed pervasive sexual comments, jokes, pornography, and unwelcome physical contact from coworkers and supervisors, which she reported but alleges was not effectively addressed. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, dismissing Ribis's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (time-barred) and negligent supervision (barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity). The Title VII retaliation claim was also dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and improper pleading. However, the court denied summary judgment on Ribis's hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims, finding genuine issues of material fact and credibility disputes that warrant a trial.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIISummary Judgment MotionEmployment DiscriminationExhaustion of Administrative RemediesRetaliation Claim DismissalIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent Supervision
References
79
Case No. 530285
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Matter of Allen v. CPP-Syracuse, Inc.

Claimant Casey Allen sustained work-related injuries to his left shoulder and neck in 2010. In 2018, he sought to amend his claim to include consequential generalized anxiety disorder, which was supported by his treating physician and an independent medical examiner, Kishor Sangani. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the amendment. The employer appealed, arguing that the medical opinions were based on inaccurate information and sought to reopen a 2014 decision to exclude the neck injury, citing a 2013 motorcycle accident. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the inclusion of generalized anxiety disorder and no abuse of discretion in denying the reopening, as the employer had prior notice of the 2013 accident.

Workers' CompensationGeneralized Anxiety DisorderConsequential InjuryMedical CausationIndependent Medical ExaminationReopening ClaimMedical RecordsNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Telergy Network Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Luc D. Allen, an employee of Marais Trenching, Inc., was seriously injured while repairing a trenching machine on a fiber optic cable project. He and his wife filed an action against Telergy Network Services, Inc. (owner) and Mastec North America, Inc. d/b/a Wilde Construction (general contractor), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as well as a contractual third-party beneficiary claim. The defendants and third-party defendant Marais Trenching, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the Supreme Court, dismissing all claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs’ claims under Labor Law § 200, § 241 (6), and the third-party beneficiary claim were reviewed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no control by Telergy or Wilde over the repair work, no violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (f), and that the plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the highway work permit or the contract between Telergy and Wilde.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentTrenching AccidentConstruction Site SafetyThird-Party Beneficiary ClaimAppellate AffirmationEmployer ResponsibilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityUnsafe Work Condition
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 126 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