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. 93-CV-1524
Regular Panel Decision

Clarke v. TRW, INC.

This case involves a whistleblower lawsuit filed by four former employees—Peter J. Clarke, Edward J. Dixon, Brian R. Fisher, and Paul J. Wheeler—against their former employer, TRW, Inc. The plaintiffs allege retaliation under New York's whistleblower law (N.Y.Lab.Law § 740) for reporting safety concerns related to defective automobile parts manufactured by TRW, specifically the Carter RFI Module and Ford ISO Relay. The alleged defects, which included improper testing and manufacturing flaws, presented a substantial danger of vehicle fires and loss of brake control. The court, addressing TRW's motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' cross-motion to file a second amended complaint, ruled that the plaintiffs' claims based on violations of 49 U.S.C. §§ 30116 and 30118 were sufficiently pleaded to proceed. However, claims relying on 49 C.F.R. §§ 571.105, 571.301, and 49 U.S.C. §§ 30112, 30115, 30122 were dismissed as these regulations apply to finished vehicles, not component parts. The court also denied the plaintiffs' requests for punitive damages and a jury trial, citing that these are not available remedies under N.Y.Lab.Law § 740(5). Ultimately, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiffs were granted partial leave to amend their complaint within 45 days.

WhistleblowerRetaliationMotor Vehicle SafetyProduct LiabilityManufacturing DefectsComponent PartsFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissMotion to AmendNTMVSA
References
45
Case No. ADJ9232746
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

RUBEN SANCHEZ vs. BENCHMARK PEST CONTROL, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUNDS

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order dismisses a petition for reconsideration filed by Joann Ozanich in the case of Ruben Sanchez v. Benchmark Pest Control. The primary reason for dismissal is that the petition was untimely, filed significantly beyond the 25-day statutory deadline after the WCJ's November 10, 2014 decision. Additionally, the petition was found to be "skeletal" as it failed to clearly articulate the specific errors made by the WCJ. The WCAB emphasizes that the time limit for filing such petitions is jurisdictional and cannot be extended.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ DecisionProof of MailingSkeletal PetitionDismissal
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00760
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2020

Clark Rigging & Rental Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Plaintiff Clark Rigging & Rental Corp. commenced an action against Tri-Krete Limited, KC Precast, LLC, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract, account stated, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, and to recover on a payment bond, stemming from work KC Precast hired plaintiff to perform. Tri-Krete moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege Tri-Krete is an alter ego of KC Precast. The Supreme Court partially granted Tri-Krete's motion, dismissing the breach of contract and account stated causes of action. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying Tri-Krete's motion in its entirety and reinstating the dismissed causes of action. The court concluded that plaintiff sufficiently alleged Tri-Krete is an alter ego of KC Precast, citing allegations of common control, intermingling of assets, and fraudulent inducement.

Alter Ego LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingBreach of ContractAccount StatedFraudulent InducementMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Appellate ReviewConstruction LawPayment Bond Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clarke v. LR SYSTEMS

Walter Clarke, a 74-year-old former employee of Favorite Plastics, Inc., filed a products liability action against LR Systems and Lasits Rohline Service, Inc. for injuries sustained in an industrial accident on August 13, 1996. Clarke's right hand was pulled into an SG Granulator 300 machine, resulting in the loss of part of his thumb and injury to three fingers. He alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty, claiming inadequate warnings and a design defect in the grinder. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim, finding Clarke was aware of the danger. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied on the defective design claims, ruling that the expert testimony regarding the feasibility of an interlocked guard was admissible.

Products LiabilityIndustrial AccidentGranulator MachineDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyNip Point HazardV-belt DriveMachine Safety
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Clarke v. One Source Facility Services, Inc.

This case concerns Sylvester Clarke's claims of employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII against One Source Facility Services, Inc. Clarke, an African-American male, alleged discrimination stemming from a refusal of non-union work, which he claimed led to his removal from a position and a series of adverse employment actions. He pursued these grievances through union complaints and two administrative complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights in 1996 and 1998. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the discrimination claim, finding a lack of evidence for racial animus. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a potential pattern of retaliatory conduct by the employer following Clarke's protected activities.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeTitle VIISummary JudgmentMcDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextRacial DiscriminationUnion GrievanceAdministrative Complaint
References
21
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05047
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2024

Cooper v. Bldg 7th St. LLC

This case involves an appeal regarding summary judgment motions on indemnification and breach of contract claims between defendants/third-party plaintiffs BLDG 7th Street, LLC et al. and third-party defendant Global Pest Control, LLC. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying summary judgment to Global on BLDG's contractual indemnification claim, citing an unclear and ambiguous indemnification agreement. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of BLDG's common-law indemnification and contribution claims against Global because plaintiff Dwayne Cooper was not alleged to have sustained a grave injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The dismissal of BLDG's breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance was also affirmed, as Global provided proof of its policy meeting contractual requirements. Consequently, issues of fact remain concerning the scope of the parties' indemnification agreement.

Contractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceThird-Party ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryAmbiguity in ContractAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05131 [186 AD3d 1149]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2020

Matter of Clarke v. City of New York

Petitioner Adrianne Clarke sought to annul the New York City Transit Authority's (NYCTA) decision to deny her differential pay following a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) injury sustained during a work-related flight. The NYCTA denied the request, citing Clarke's late notification of the injury and the uncertainty surrounding whether her travel constituted a "workplace activity" for differential pay eligibility. The Supreme Court upheld the NYCTA's decision as rationally based, noting that traveling to work is generally not considered a workplace activity and Clarke had a personal history of DVT. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no error in the denial of differential pay.

Differential PayDeep Vein ThrombosisWorkplace InjuryTimely NoticeAssigned DutyTravel TimeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewRational BasisWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Clarke

The case involves the appeal of Brian Clarke's conviction for felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The initial judgment sentenced him to 25 years to life for murder in the second degree. On appeal, the court found that the defendant received meaningful representation and the motion to vacate judgment was properly denied. However, the appellate court, exercising discretion in the interest of justice, reduced the sentence for murder in the second degree to a term of 15 years to life. This modification was based on factors such as it being the defendant's first offense, his below-average intelligence, and the jury's conviction solely on the felony-murder count. A dissenting opinion argued against the sentence reduction, highlighting the brutal nature of the crime—a cold-blooded execution during a robbery—and the defendant's background as an admitted drug dealer.

Criminal LawFelony MurderRobberyCriminal Possession of WeaponSentence ReductionAppellate ReviewProsecutorial MisconductSuppression MotionMeaningful RepresentationMental Capacity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanna v. Clarke

Albert J. Hanna, an executive delegate of Buffalo Local No. 1, brought an action against Paul J. Clarke, president of the Empire State Telephone Workers’ Organization, seeking a declaratory judgment. Hanna challenged his removal by the union's executive committee for allegedly not taking an active part in a meeting. He argued he was deprived of a fair hearing, as his request for postponement due to dental surgery was denied, and that his actions did not warrant charges under the union's constitution. The court found that while Hanna's actions were "childish, undignified and irritating," they did not justify the charges. Consequently, the court granted Hanna a declaratory judgment, declaring the executive committee's action null and void and enjoining them from disapproving his redesignation on the grounds previously stated.

Declaratory JudgmentUnion LawExecutive DelegateFair HearingDue ProcessUnion ConstitutionInternal Union DisputeWorkers' RightsPostponement RefusalExecutive Committee
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,589 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