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
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Case No. ADJ2270309 (VNO 0113668) ADJ4503834 (VNO 0113665) ADJ3103605 (VNO 0113666) ADJ2309113 (VNO 0113667)
Regular
Nov 10, 2010

MARIA GARCIA vs. CITY OF LOS ABNGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a previous award, finding merit in the applicant's contentions regarding denied medical treatments. The Board intends to admit a nurse case manager's report that was previously excluded. This reconsideration aims to further review the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision regarding the applicant's extensive care needs stemming from long-term quadriplegia. The Board is specifically addressing disputes over various requested services, including nursing care, home modifications, and specific medical treatments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings and AwardHomecareNursing ServicesBedsore TreatmentHousekeeping ServicesHospital BedQuadriplegiaInternal InjuryLabor Code §5803
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nurse v. Lutheran Medical Center

Plaintiff Lorna Nurse, a Black Barbadian former Nurse Practitioner at Lutheran Medical Center (LMC), sued LMC alleging racial and national origin discrimination in her termination, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LMC moved for summary judgment. Nurse claimed disparate treatment, discriminatory comments by her supervisor Ms. Schwimer, and LMC's failure to follow progressive discipline. The court found that Nurse failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as she did not show her termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, nor were her identified comparators similarly situated. The court also found LMC provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination based on a pattern of unprofessional conduct, and Nurse failed to show this reason was a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, LMC's motion for summary judgment was granted.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentTerminationDisparate TreatmentNurse PractitionerEmployee MisconductProgressive Discipline
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1988

In re Nurse Care Registry, Inc.

Nurse Care Registry, Inc., an agency providing health care personnel, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that classified its workers as employees rather than independent contractors, making Nurse Care liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence of Nurse Care's control over key aspects of the services provided by the workers. This control included client contact, worker wages, and billing/collection, which were deemed indicative of an employer-employee relationship. The court relied on precedent establishing that such control warrants an employment finding, despite workers having full-time positions elsewhere and the agency not directly supervising daily work.

unemployment insuranceemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractoradministrative lawappellate reviewlabor lawagency staffingcontrol testsubstantial evidencehealth care industry
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00739 [224 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2024

Hasan v. Terrace Acquisitions II, LLC

This case addresses the retroactivity of the repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA). Plaintiff, representing the estate of a deceased nursing home resident, sued the defendant nursing home for negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death related to COVID-19. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, which the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed. The court held that the repeal of the EDTPA, which previously granted immunity to healthcare facilities during the pandemic, was not retroactive. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to immunity for actions that occurred while the EDTPA was in effect. Additionally, the court found that the defendant successfully defended against the gross negligence claim, demonstrating preparatory steps to prevent infections and adherence to Department of Health policies.

Retroactivity of statute repealEmergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA)COVID-19 immunityNursing home liabilityGross negligence defenseStatutory interpretationPublic Health LawAppellate reviewWrongful death claimNegligence claim
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C.N.S., Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance

This case involves cross-motions for summary judgment concerning a dispute over retiree medical benefits provided by AlliedSignal, Inc. The plaintiffs, C.N.S., Inc. d/b/a Community Nursing Services (CNS) and Gloria Steiner, challenged the denial of benefits for nursing services and the hourly rate. The Court dismissed claims against Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (CGLIC) as it had no duty to pay benefits. The Court granted summary judgment to defendants regarding the reduction of nursing service payments from $100 to $55 per hour, finding the administrator's decision reasonable due to plaintiffs' failure to provide justification. However, the Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment concerning the termination of benefits for around-the-clock nursing care, citing a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of that decision.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsRetiree Medical PlanSummary Plan DescriptionPlan Administrator DiscretionBenefit DenialSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardOut-of-Network BenefitsNursing Services
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses' Ass'n

Huntington Hospital initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to partially vacate an arbitration award, while the Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association cross-petitioned to confirm it. The dispute originated from the Hospital unilaterally granting two nurses, Betty Evans and Lynn Meyer, longevity pay credits exceeding the ten-year cap stipulated in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitrator found the Hospital violated the CBA's sections on pay and exclusive bargaining rights. The arbitrator mandated the Hospital roll back excess credits and recover overpayments. The District Court denied the Hospital's petition, dismissing arguments regarding public policy, manifest disregard for law, and lack of award finality, ultimately confirming the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal Arbitration ActWage DisputesLongevity PayUnion RightsPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawContract Interpretation
References
22
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06800
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2021

Harris v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Facility LLC

Plaintiff Mariantha Harris appealed an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, denying her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense based on the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the order, granting Harris's cross motion. Harris successfully established prima facie that she was not an employee of Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility LLC at the time of her accident, but rather was solely employed by nonparty Clear Choice, P.C. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that Harris was its special employee, with its reliance solely on the plaintiff performing duties at its nursing home being insufficient. Additionally, the court found the doctrine of judicial estoppel inapplicable because plaintiff had not secured a judgment in her favor in the prior proceeding, and the defendant's prematurity argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Summary JudgmentExclusive RemedyEmployment StatusSpecial EmployeeSlip and FallJudicial EstoppelAppellate ProcedureCross MotionAffirmative DefenseClear Choice P.C.
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 16,811 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