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
May 31, 2002

Finnigan v. Rochester Institute of Technology

The plaintiff, an employee of RADEC Corporation, was injured at a building owned by Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and initiated an action alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. Initially, a jury apportioned fault and awarded damages, but after reinstruction, RIT's fault was eliminated, leaving RADEC and the plaintiff responsible. Both parties moved for directed verdicts, with the court granting RIT's. On appeal, the higher court determined the lower court had erred in interpreting the jury's verdict concerning Labor Law § 241 (6) and Rule 23. Consequently, the appellate court denied RIT's motion for a directed verdict, granted RIT's alternative request for a new trial, and denied the plaintiff's motion, thereby granting a new trial on both liability and damages.

Labor LawNegligenceDirected VerdictNew TrialApportionment of FaultIndustrial CodeOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityJury Charge
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'ROURKE v. Smithsonian Institution Press

Kevin O'Rourke filed a copyright infringement action against the Smithsonian Institution Press and The Smithsonian Institution, alleging they infringed his book "Currier and Ives: The Irish in America" by publishing "Currier and Ives: America Imagined." The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) grants exclusive jurisdiction over copyright claims against the United States to the Court of Federal Claims. O'Rourke contended that the defendants were independent entities not falling under "the United States" for the statute's purposes. The Court, however, found that "the United States" in Section 1498(b) should be interpreted broadly, encompassing the Smithsonian Institution and its press, referencing previous rulings where the Smithsonian was considered part of the federal government. Consequently, the Court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, closing the case.

Copyright InfringementSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Copyright ActCourt of Federal ClaimsSmithsonian InstitutionUnited StatesSovereign ImmunityMotion to Dismiss28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)Tucker Act
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colon v. Fashion Institute of Technology

This case involves plaintiffs Genette Colon and Elvimar Rivas, who sued their former employer, the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), and several individual defendants, alleging racial and pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA violations. Colon brought claims for FMLA interference and retaliation, and discriminatory treatment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Rivas filed claims for pregnancy discrimination, discriminatory discharge, and hostile work environment under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court, presided over by Judge Harold Baer, Jr., granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on Colon's FMLA interference and retaliation claims and Rivas's NYCHRL pregnancy discrimination and discharge claims, finding material issues of fact. However, summary judgment was granted for defendants on Colon's § 1981 discriminatory treatment and retaliation claims, and Rivas's § 1981 and NYCHRL hostile work environment claims, concluding these claims lacked sufficient evidence of adverse action or discriminatory intent.

Race DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationFMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationEmployment Law42 U.S.C. 1981NYCHRL
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc.

Ronald Rogers, while performing maintenance, fell nine feet from a stationary conveyor system at Agway Feed Mill. He and his wife, Lisa Rogers, sued Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc. and Portee, Inc., alleging negligent design and manufacturing, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. Westfalia, Portee, Probec, Inc., and Mill Technology, Inc. filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Rogers and their products were not defective. The court found that Agway, the employer and purchaser, was in the best position to assess risks and declined optional safety equipment. Furthermore, Rogers was aware of the dangers, and warnings were posted. Consequently, the court granted all motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, counterclaims, and cross-claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemIndustrial AccidentAssumption of RiskOpen and Obvious Danger
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dansler-Hill v. Rochester Institute of Technology

Plaintiff Wanda Dansler-Hill filed an action against Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) alleging employment discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII, the ADA, and NYHRL, as well as state law claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff's employment was terminated after she was on disability leave due to a back injury, anxiety, and depression. She filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC, which resulted in a 'no cause' finding, leading her to commence this lawsuit. RIT moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted RIT's motion, dismissing all claims, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for discrimination, retaliation, or hostile work environment, and that the state law claims were untimely or precluded by workers' compensation law.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawEmotional DistressMotion to DismissDisability LeaveWorkers' Compensation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doner-Hedrick v. New York Institute of Technology

The plaintiff, Henrietta Doner-Hedrick, sued New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, and for breach of contract. Doner-Hedrick, a non-Muslim Asian female, was terminated after students complained about her suggestion to design a pink, shoe-shaped mosque. NYIT moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for NYIT on the discrimination and retaliation claims, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory animus or retaliation and that NYIT had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination. However, the court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, determining there was a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff's misconduct constituted a material breach.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentReligious DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationGender DiscriminationCultural Sensitivity
References
60
Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Xu-Shen Zhou v. State University of New York Institute of Technology

This case details an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Xu-Shen Zhou against State University of New York Institute of Technology (SUNY IT) and three individual doctors. Zhou alleged retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law, claiming his contract non-renewal was discriminatory. The court addressed motions from both parties: Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, while Plaintiff sought reinstatement or front pay. The court denied all motions, affirming the jury's finding of retaliation, upholding the jury instructions, and deeming reinstatement inappropriate due to irreparable animosity between the parties.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981New York State Human Rights LawPost-Trial MotionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialRemittiturReinstatement
References
69
Case No. ADJ2468227 (RIV 0049790)
Regular
Jul 09, 2012

LESLIE GRAHAM vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR MEN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an Arbitrator's Findings and Award in the case of Leslie Graham versus the State of California, Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Both the applicant and defendant sought reconsideration. The WCAB granted this to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications regarding this matter must be filed in writing with the WCAB Commissioners' office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLeslie GrahamDepartment of Corrections and RehabilitationCalifornia Institution for Menlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ2468227RIV 0049790Petition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's Findings and Award
References
0
Case No. ADJ8691809
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

NICOLE BORAGNO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY CHOWCHILLA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves Nicole Boragno's workers' compensation claim against the State of California, CDCR. The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying the admission of a supplemental medical report. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the supplemental report inadmissible. This was because discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference, and the defendant failed to establish good cause for introducing evidence not previously disclosed. The WCJ noted there was no change in circumstances to warrant the late-filed report, distinguishing it from precedent that allows such reports.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationmandatory settlement conferencediscovery closureLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)good causesupplemental reportPQMEapportionmenttimeliness
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,639 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