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. 09 Civ. 3043(PAE)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2014

Hart v. Rick's NY Cabaret International, Inc.

This Opinion & Order addresses the court's jurisdiction over New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims in a class action lawsuit filed by exotic dancers against Rick's Cabaret and related entities. The plaintiffs initially brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and NYLL. While the court considered exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims, plaintiffs argued for independent diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The court concluded that, based on the current record, it possesses independent jurisdiction under CAFA for the NYLL claims. Furthermore, the court found that the defendants failed to establish any of the statutory exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, including the 'local controversy,' 'home state,' or 'interest of justice' exceptions. The court left open the possibility for a renewed motion to remand the NYLL claims if later-developed facts challenge CAFA jurisdiction.

FLSA ClaimsNYLL ClaimsCAFA JurisdictionClass ActionSupplemental JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionEmployment LawExotic DancersMinimum WageWage & Hour
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurovskaya v. Project O.H.R., Inc.

The plaintiffs, Natalia Kurovskaya and Ruslan Domnic, sued Project O.H.R., Inc. in New York State Supreme Court for alleged violations of New York Labor Law, including unpaid wages and overtime. Project O.H.R. removed the case to the Southern District of New York under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, specifically the local controversy and home state exceptions, applied. The court agreed, inferring that two-thirds or more of the plaintiff class members and the primary defendant were citizens of New York State. Additionally, the court found the discretionary 'interests of justice' exception applicable, concluding that the case involved New York state law and parties. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion, remanding the action to the New York State Supreme Court.

Class Action Fairness ActCAFA ExceptionsRemandFederal JurisdictionState CourtNew York Labor LawMinimum WageOvertimeHome State ExceptionLocal Controversy Exception
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ava Acupuncture P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Plaintiffs, medical providers, filed a class action in state court against several insurers, including State Farm, alleging fraudulent non-payment of No-Fault medical reimbursement claims under New York law. Defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the five million dollar amount in controversy requirement was not met, or alternatively, that the local controversy exception to CAFA applied. The court found that State Farm successfully demonstrated that the amount in controversy exceeded forty million dollars through denied claims. The court also determined that plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a 'significant' local defendant, thus rendering the local controversy exception inapplicable. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court was denied.

Class Action Fairness ActCAFASubject Matter JurisdictionFederal RemovalRemand MotionAmount in ControversyLocal Controversy ExceptionNew York No-Fault Insurance LawMedical ReimbursementInsurance Fraud
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ10147686
Regular
Jun 12, 2017

TOBY LAPESARDE vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision finding the applicant's injury compensable. The Board rescinded the original findings and returned the case for further proceedings to determine if the "special risk" exception to the going-and-coming rule applies. The WCJ initially found the injury compensable under the "special mission" exception, but the Board noted credibility issues regarding the applicant's assertion of mandatory overtime. The applicant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while commuting home after working a double shift.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryLicensed Vocational NursePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Risk ExceptionMandatory OvertimeCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
20
Case No. ADJ7466813
Regular
Apr 10, 2013

ROBERTO MENA, COBERTON MENA vs. PRIORITY BUILDING SERVICES; LUMBERMAN'S UNDERWRITING, PRIORITY BUILDING SERVICES, LLC; LUMBERMAN'S UNDERWRITING

This case involves a lien claimant, Max MRI Imaging, whose lien was dismissed due to failure to pay the mandatory lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the dismissal despite the claimant's argument of an oversight. The Board emphasized that the statute's language is mandatory and provides no exceptions for inadvertent non-payment. The ruling also clarified procedural arguments regarding notice, appearances, and the inapplicability of the *Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp.* case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoberto MenaPriority Building ServicesLumberman's UnderwritingADJ7466813Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.06Lien Activation FeeDismissal of LienMandatory Requirement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dormeyer v. McCall

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the respondent's denial of performance of duty disability retirement benefits. The denial stemmed from the petitioner's failure to provide the mandatory written notice under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c (e) (a). The court found that the petitioner did not preserve the 'good cause' exception issue for review as it was not raised during the administrative hearing. Furthermore, the court upheld the respondent's determination that oral notice to the employer was insufficient to satisfy the Workers’ Compensation Law exception. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementPerformance of Duty BenefitsNotice RequirementsAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewPreservation of IssuesGood CauseWorkers' Compensation ExceptionOral NoticeDetermination Confirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

The Texas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (the Board) sued the Attorney General seeking a declaration that certain chiropractic records were exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). The records were part of the Board's investigation file concerning a complaint, which the Board considered confidential under Occupations Code section 201.206(a). The Attorney General's Open Records Division (ORD) initially opined that patient access provisions (sections 201.404 and 201.405) created an exception, requiring disclosure with proper consent. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Attorney General, mandating disclosure. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the patient access provisions did not create an exception to the confidentiality afforded the Board's investigation files, thus the documents were exempt from mandatory disclosure.

Public Information ActConfidentialityChiropractic RecordsInvestigation FilesStatutory ConstructionSummary JudgmentPatient AccessGovernmental BodyAttorney General OpinionAppellate Review
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sorrentino v. ASN Roosevelt Center, LLC

This case concerns a putative class action, Sorrentino, initiated by former tenants of the Archstone Westbury apartment complex. The tenants alleged issues stemming from water intrusion and mold, leading to claims including medical monitoring and violations of New York General Business Law § 349. Initially filed in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, the action was removed to federal court by the defendants under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Presiding District Judge Spatt evaluated federal jurisdiction, confirming the amount in controversy was met. However, the court ultimately granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case and two related actions, Ventimiglia and In re Archstone Westbury Tenant Litigation, back to the New York State Supreme Court, County of Nassau, citing the discretionary exception to CAFA jurisdiction.

Class Action Fairness ActCAFAClass ActionRemandFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionLocal Controversy ExceptionHome State ExceptionDiscretionary ExceptionMold Exposure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2007

Laverghetta v. Tug Edge Dairy

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a ruling that the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier improperly suspended claimant’s benefits and imposed a penalty. The claimant had established a work-related injury to her hand in 2003. The carrier suspended payments in April 2006 without following proper procedures, arguing justification under 12 NYCRR 300.23 (b) (2) based on an exception for no disability. However, the Board found the carrier's relied-upon November 2003 C-4 report insufficient, noting conflicting medical opinions within the report and from a subsequent independent medical examiner. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the evidence did not trigger the exception and that the mandatory penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) was properly imposed due to the carrier's failure to make timely payments.

Workers' CompensationBenefit SuspensionPenalty ImpositionMedical EvidenceDisability AssessmentProcedural ComplianceAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawCarrier LiabilityDue Process
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,935 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