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 04, 1999

Doe v. Community Health Plan—Kaiser Corp.

Plaintiff sued Ericka Klein, Community Health Plan—Kaiser Corporation (CHP), and Christen Adey for damages due to the alleged disclosure of confidential medical information from her patient file. The Supreme Court initially granted partial summary judgment against Adey but dismissed several claims against CHP and Klein. On appeal, the Court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment but reversed the grant of CHP’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, which alleged breach of confidentiality. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the remaining causes of action, including those for statutory breach of confidentiality and intentional infliction of emotional distress, clarifying the scope of direct corporate responsibility for employee actions breaching confidentiality.

ConfidentialityMedical InformationBreach of DutyNegligent DisclosureStatutory BreachIntentional RevelationInadequate PoliciesNegligent SupervisionEmotional DistressRespondeat Superior
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lightman v. Flaum

Plaintiff sued Rabbis Flaum and Weinberger for breach of clergy-penitent privilege, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation, alleging they disclosed confidential communications made during spiritual counseling. The defendants moved to dismiss, claiming no private cause of action exists for breach of the privilege, and that their disclosures were compelled by Jewish law or made in the presence of third parties, thus waiving confidentiality. The court ruled that a cause of action for breach of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality does exist, rejecting the argument that the First Amendment provides an absolute defense where tortious conduct is involved and can be determined by neutral principles of law. The court found the disclosure potentially actionable and denied dismissal for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but dismissed the defamation claim due to absolute judicial privilege. Factual issues regarding waiver of privilege remain for trial.

Clergy-Penitent PrivilegeFiduciary DutyConfidentiality BreachIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationFirst AmendmentReligious FreedomSummary JudgmentTort LiabilityRabbinical Counseling
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russo v. Estée Lauder Corp.

Daniel Russo, a former Estée Lauder employee, sued the company alleging disability discrimination, retaliation for a prior lawsuit, and breach of a settlement agreement related to his long-term disability benefits. The defendant, Estée Lauder, moved for summary judgment on all claims, while Russo and his attorney, Frederick K. Brewington (third-party defendants), also moved for summary judgment on Estée Lauder's counterclaims for breach of confidentiality. The court granted Estée Lauder's motion for summary judgment on Russo's amended complaint, dismissing all his claims (breach of contract, Title VII, ADA, and New York Executive Law § 296). The court also denied the third-party defendants' motion for summary judgment on Estée Lauder's counterclaims, finding triable issues of fact regarding alleged breaches of the confidentiality provisions. Additionally, Estée Lauder's motion to strike certain documents was granted in part, and its motion for sanctions against Russo and his attorney was denied.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractRetaliation ClaimDisability DiscriminationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)New York Executive Law § 296ERISA PreemptionSettlement AgreementConfidentiality Breach
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howell v. Aluminum Co. of America, Inc.

William R. Howell, an ALCOA employee, initiated a civil action against ALCOA alleging breach of implied contract, breach of confidential relationship, and unjust enrichment. Howell claimed ALCOA stole his design for an improved skim boom after he presented a model during a company cost-cutting initiative. The court found no evidence to support an implied contract, a confidential or fiduciary relationship, or that ALCOA misappropriated his design, noting the lack of novelty in the design and ALCOA's right to decline his proposal. Consequently, the court granted ALCOA's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.

Implied contractConfidential relationshipUnjust enrichmentSummary judgmentIdea misappropriationIndustrial designEmployee proposalIntellectual propertyContract lawTort law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AmeriGas Propane, Inc. v. Crook

AmeriGas Propane Inc. sought injunctive relief against former employees J.T. Crook and Ricky Jenkins, and their new employer Empiregas, Inc. of Lebanon, alleging breach of non-compete agreements, tortious interference with contract, and misappropriation of confidential information. The court found that Crook and Jenkins breached their post-employment agreements by soliciting AmeriGas customers using confidential information gained during their prior employment. The defendants and Empiregas were also found liable for tortious interference with contracts and unfair competition. The court concluded that AmeriGas suffered irreparable harm, upholding contracts serves public interest, and enforcing the covenants would not impose undue economic hardship on the defendants. Consequently, the court granted AmeriGas's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Non-compete agreementPreliminary InjunctionBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceConfidential InformationUnfair CompetitionTrade SecretsEmployee SolicitationCustomer GoodwillPropane Gas Industry
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Advisory Group, Ltd. v. COUNTRY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiffs Pension Advisory Group, Ltd., Paul Hinson, and Larry Walters, along with Third Party Plaintiff Diversified Growth Solutions, sued Country Life Insurance Company and its Vice President, Dale Hall. The lawsuit stems from an alleged breach of confidentiality, theft of trade secrets related to an innovative insurance product developed by Hinson, unfair competition, libel, business disparagement, theft, and tortious interference with prospective contracts. Plaintiffs claim they disclosed trade secrets to Defendants under a mutual confidentiality agreement, only for Defendants to later assert ownership of the product information and file a protest with the USPTO, causing significant financial impact. The court partially granted and denied motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for a more definite statement, dismissed Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim against Hall, and denied motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction against Hall and to transfer venue. Multiple claims were ordered to be re-pled for greater specificity.

Intellectual PropertyTrade Secrets MisappropriationBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionLibelBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferencePersonal JurisdictionMotion to DismissMotion to Transfer Venue
References
93
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2001

Vitale v. Buttafuoco & Associates

The plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant, seeking damages for breach of contract. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff had established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court agreed with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the defendant, who had represented the plaintiff in a prior negligence lawsuit, improperly included a portion of a waived workers' compensation lien as part of its contingency fee. This action was deemed a breach of the retainer agreement and a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 24. The defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was also properly denied.

Breach of contractContingency feeWorkers' Compensation lienSummary judgmentRetainer agreementAppellate reviewLegal feesAttorney misconductWaiver of lienNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anjay Corp. v. Those Certain Underwriters

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance claim denied by defendant insurers to plaintiff jewelry manufacturers. The plaintiffs experienced a significant loss due to an explosion and fire at their facility in Mexico. The defendants denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiffs had breached a "Video Tape Warranty" in their jewelers’ block insurance policy by failing to preserve relevant videotapes. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that a breach of warranty does not negate recovery under an insurance contract unless it materially increases the risk of loss, which is typically a factual question for a jury. The court found the defendants' arguments regarding the materiality of the breach unconvincing and subsequently reinstated the plaintiffs' complaint.

Insurance LawBreach of WarrantySummary JudgmentVideo Tape WarrantyMateriality of BreachRisk of LossJewelers' Block PolicyAppellate ReviewReversalComplaint Reinstatement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apex Industrial Construction Corp. v. Village of Lake George

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing its complaint for breach of contract and awarding damages to the defendant village on its counterclaim. The plaintiff claimed the village breached the contract by failing to provide a clear construction site, due to a plumbers' union picket line protesting the village's award of plumbing work to a nonunion employer. The court found that the picketing was an act of a third party, not attributable to the village, and that the village lawfully awarded contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, even if nonunion. Therefore, the plaintiff's abandonment of the job constituted a breach of contract, justifying the damages awarded to the village. The judgment was affirmed.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawLabor DisputePicket LineNonunion EmployerMunicipal ContractsLowest Responsible BidderContract AbandonmentDamages AwardedThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1997

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) filed a class action grievance against the County of Nassau on behalf of five Construction Inspector Trainees whose employment was terminated in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. An advisory arbitrator recommended in favor of the CSEA, but the County Executive overturned this decision. CSEA and the individual employees then initiated proceedings under CPLR articles 75 and 78, and sought damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court dismissed the CPLR proceedings and individual breach of contract claims, while allowing CSEA to pursue its breach of contract claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the advisory arbitrator's recommendation was not binding and that CPLR article 78 was not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceAdvisory ArbitrationCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Breach of ContractPublic EmployeesEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewNassau County
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,814 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