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
Nov 12, 2002

Venti v. EDS

Plaintiff Rose Venti sued her employer, EDS, alleging age discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL). Venti claimed EDS took adverse employment actions, including stripping her responsibilities and denying training, before terminating her as part of a company-wide reduction-in-force (RIF). The court granted EDS's motion for summary judgment, finding Venti failed to demonstrate that EDS's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were a pretext for age discrimination. The decision also addressed the timeliness of Venti's claims under the continuing violation exception.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)PretextDiscriminatory IntentADEANYHRLTime-barred ClaimsContinuing Violation Doctrine
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Eddings v. Big Jim Service Center, Inc.

MISSING

Appellate ReviewAffirmation of OrderJudicial ConcurrenceCourt of AppealsMemorandum Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ7865036
Regular
Nov 05, 2012

ED HOFFMAN vs. BEST OVERNITE EXPRESS, INC., TOWER SELECT INSURANCE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the applicant, Ed Hoffman, regarding a previous order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted this petition. The WCAB requires additional time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented. This reconsideration is necessary to ensure a just and reasoned decision, and further proceedings may be held.

ADJ7865036WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDOPINION AND ORDERGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONPetition for ReconsiderationBEST OVERNITE EXPRESSTOWER SELECT INSURANCEstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1995

Brito v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

A judgment was entered on October 12, 1995, by the Supreme Court, Bronx County, in favor of the plaintiff against Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) for $530,000, which included future medical expenses and loss of earnings. The verdict apportioned liability 40% against Con Ed and 60% against third-party defendant Globe Fence Co. The appellate court modified the judgment, ruling that the trial court incorrectly denied Con Ed's motion for common-law indemnification against Globe. It was determined that Con Ed's liability was vicarious, as there was no evidence of them directing the work, thereby entitling Con Ed to full indemnification from Globe. Consequently, the judgment was modified to award Con Ed full indemnification against Globe, and otherwise affirmed.

IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityApportionment of LiabilityCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual ObligationSupervisionConstruction WorkThird-Party DefendantAppellate ReviewDamages
References
1
Case No. ADJ391084 (GOL 0102020) ADJ1292455 (GOL 0100312)
Regular
May 26, 2015

MICHAEL LOPEZ vs. ED & TED'S EXCELLENT LIGHTING, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANIES

This case involves two workers' compensation claims for applicant Michael Lopez against Ed & Ted's Excellent Lighting, insured by Redwood Fire & Casualty and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. The Arbitrator found industrial injuries to Lopez's back and extremities and allocated partial liability to both insurers for the second injury period. Both insurers sought reconsideration, alleging clerical errors and disputes over liability allocation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct these clerical errors. The Board rescinded the original decision and returned the case to the Arbitrator for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderArbitratorIndustrial InjuryLumbar BackUpper ExtremitiesHerniaCumulative TraumaInsurance Company
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05813 [198 AD3d 564]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2021

Hernandez v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Plaintiff Ramon Hernandez sued Consolidated Edison for negligence after his hand was pulled into a bread machine operating in reverse due to Con Ed's faulty rewiring of subterranean electrical cables. A jury found Con Ed negligent and awarded Hernandez damages for past and future pain and suffering, as well as lost earnings. Con Ed's motion to set aside the jury verdict was denied by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision. The court found that the trial evidence sufficiently supported the jury's verdict regarding Con Ed's negligence and the awarded damages, and dismissed Con Ed's other contentions.

NegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryElectrical WiringDamages AwardPain and SufferingLost EarningsJury InstructionsAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelley v. Lynaugh

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning the validity of various absentee and special ballots cast in a November 5, 2013, general election for Councilmember, 4th Council District, Town of Brookhaven. Constance M. Kepert appealed parts of a Supreme Court order, and Michael A. Loguercio, Jr., cross-appealed other parts. The appellate court modified the lower court's determinations regarding the casting and canvassing of specific ballots. The modifications were based on voter intent derived from ballot markings, as well as adherence to Election Law regarding signature verification and timely ballot receipt. Ultimately, the court directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections not to cast or canvass ballots designated as exhibits 2, 8, and 17, and to cast and canvass ballots designated as exhibits 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Election DisputeBallot ValidityVoter IntentAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsCanvassing ProceduresElection Law Article 16Suffolk County ElectionsAppellate ReviewGeneral Election 2013
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.J. Cassone Bakery, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff suing Consolidated Edison Company (Con Ed) for fraud and breach of contract related to its "Curtailable Electric Service - Summer Savings Program" (CES). Con Ed had offered a five-year program with specific electricity credit amounts, but later reduced these credits in 1993 following a settlement with the Public Service Commission (PSC) after seeking a rate increase. The plaintiff sought damages for the reduced credits and investments made based on the original program. Con Ed moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting various defenses including lack of jurisdiction, Statute of Limitations, and failure to state a cause of action, arguing that the agreement did not guarantee a fixed rate and was subject to PSC-approved tariffs. The court denied Con Ed's motion to dismiss, determining that the plaintiff presented a viable breach of contract claim regarding Con Ed's good-faith obligation and its involvement in the rate increase settlement, warranting further proceedings.

Breach of ContractFraudPublic Service CommissionUtility RatesCurtailable Electric ServiceTariff ChangesImpossibility of PerformanceGood Faith ObligationMotion to DismissContractual Agreements
References
41
Case No. SAU2262762
Regular
Sep 17, 2019

KEVIN TUCKER vs. E.L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION CO., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns whether the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) must pay a medical lien assigned to EDS Financial Services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied EDS's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior ruling that issue preclusion bars EDS from relitigating the lien's status as a "covered claim." The Board found that the identical issues of whether the assigned lien constituted a covered claim under Insurance Code section 1063.1 were actually litigated and decided in a previous case, *Wanda Fullylove*. EDS's arguments regarding separate statutory provisions and the nature of assignments were rejected, as prior litigation fully addressed the claim's covered status under CIGA's statutory framework, including the exclusion for assignee claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGACovered ClaimIssue PreclusionCollateral EstoppelInsurance Code Section 1063.1(c)(1)(F)Insurance Code Section 1063.1(c)(9)(B)AssigneeLien Claimant
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 43 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