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

Patterson v. Xerox Corporation

Plaintiff Vanessa Patterson sued Xerox Corporation and Samuel Peterson, alleging discrimination based on national origin, race, and gender, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. She also included common law claims for negligent supervision and retention. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The court granted dismissal of Title VII claims against Peterson due to his status as a co-employee, and all common law negligence claims against both defendants, citing the exclusivity of the New York Worker's Compensation Law. However, the court denied dismissal of hostile work environment and retaliation claims against Xerox under Title VII, and against both Xerox and Peterson under the New York State Human Rights Law, finding them plausible and reasonably related to her EEOC charge.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionIndividual LiabilityNegligent SupervisionWorker's Compensation Exclusivity
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Pittner v. St. Gobain Corporation

David Pittner, Director of Human Resources for St. Gobain Corporation, died in his Erie County apartment on November 3, 2010. A claim for workers’ compensation death benefits was filed. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the death arose out of employment, a decision affirmed by a Board panel. However, upon mandatory full Board review, the decision was reversed, and the claim was disallowed, finding the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment. This court affirmed the full Board's determination, concluding that the decedent's death did not occur during travel for the employer's business and his apartment had not achieved the status of an additional place of employment, thus rendering it non-compensable under Workers’ Compensation Law.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse of EmploymentArising out of EmploymentTravel RuleHome as WorkplaceAppellate ReviewReversalAffirmationNew York Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tanzer v. Turbodyne Corp.

The case involves appeals from orders allowing two lawsuits to proceed as class actions, concerning "going private" mergers of Turbodyne Corporation and Masoneilan International, Inc. The plaintiffs, Michael and Deborah Tanzer, trustees of a profit-sharing plan, had made minimal investments in these companies before seeking class action status, alleging fraud and inadequate pricing. The court, led by Silverman, J., critically examined the plaintiffs' motives and their close ties to their attorneys, questioning their ability to adequately represent the class. Doubts were also raised regarding the appropriateness of New York courts handling claims primarily governed by Delaware corporate law. Ultimately, the court reversed the class action certifications, denying the motions for class action status in both cases due to concerns about representation adequacy and proper forum.

Class ActionMergerFreeze-outCorporate LawShareholder LitigationFiduciary DutyAdequacy of RepresentationConflict of InterestForum Non ConveniensDelaware Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Poppenberg v. Reliable Maintainance Corp.

In this negligence action, the plaintiff sued Reliable Maintenance Corporation for injuries sustained due to a defective elevator. Reliable moved for summary judgment, asserting an affirmative defense that the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, arguing that the plaintiff was either an employee of a joint venture involving Reliable and Suburban Maintenance Corporation or a special employee of Reliable. Special Term denied the motion, citing unresolved questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding no evidence of a joint venture due to the lack of shared profits and losses among the corporations, despite common ownership. The court also concluded that there were insufficient facts to determine control over the plaintiff for either joint or special employment, necessitating a trial for full factual development.

Workers' CompensationJoint VentureSpecial EmploymentSummary JudgmentNegligenceEmployer LiabilityCorporate StructureControl TestAppellate ReviewFactual Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell v. Xerox Corp.

Fifteen plaintiffs sued Xerox Corporation and its associated benefit plans under ERISA, alleging that Xerox promised them unchanging lifetime medical and dental benefits during an early retirement program in 1987. They claimed Xerox breached this promise by introducing a reservation-of-rights clause in 2008 and by improperly changing the calculation of the 6% out-of-pocket maximum for medical expenses. Defendants moved to dismiss, citing lack of standing, untimeliness, and arguing the early retirement program was not an ERISA plan. The court denied dismissal on standing, statute of limitations, and the ERISA plan status, allowing most of plaintiffs' claims to proceed. However, it dismissed Xerox Corporation as a defendant for certain claims, along with the state law promissory estoppel claim and the claim for statutory damages under ERISA § 1132(c).

ERISAEmployee BenefitsRetirement PlansMedical BenefitsDental BenefitsPromissory EstoppelStatute of LimitationsStandingReservation of Rights ClausePlan Administrator Discretion
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hatcher v. Augustus

The plaintiff, Philip Hatcher, a 7-Eleven store manager, initiated an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against the franchisee, Warner Augustus, and the franchisor, Southland Corporation. Hatcher alleged wrongful termination based on his religion after being fired for refusing to work on Sunday mornings. Southland Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Hatcher's employer within the context of Title VII. The court applied a 'hybrid test,' which combines economic realities and common law agency tests, to determine employer status. Despite Southland providing payroll services to the franchisee, the court found that Augustus had exclusive control over Hatcher's employment. The court concluded that Southland was not Hatcher's 'employer' under Title VII and granted Southland's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it.

Title VIIReligious DiscriminationFranchisor LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementHybrid TestControl TestEconomic Realities TestEmployment Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2009

Johnson v. UniFirst Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Derrick Corporation, sustained injuries when his uniform, rented from UniFirst Corporation, caught fire. UniFirst, a defendant in the main personal injury action, filed a third-party complaint against Derrick for contractual indemnification. Derrick moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that its contract with UniFirst had expired at the time of the accident, thus barring indemnification under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied Derrick's motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and Derrick's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. The appellate court found UniFirst failed to provide statutory notice for automatic contract renewal under General Obligations Law § 5-903 (2).

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAutomatic Renewal ProvisionThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuryUniform FireEmployer LiabilityStatutory Notice
References
6
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02539 [204 AD3d 903]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2022

Leighton v. Chaber, LLC

Michael Leighton (plaintiff) was allegedly injured on March 20, 2013, when he was struck in the eye by debris from a grinder tool while performing renovation work at a property owned by Chaber, LLC, and leased by Starbucks Corporation. He commenced actions against Chaber, LLC, and Starbucks Corporation, asserting violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) predicated upon 12 NYCRR 23-1.33. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment to dismiss these claims. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court vacated its prior decision and granted the defendants' motions. The plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that 12 NYCRR 23-1.33 does not apply to workers on a construction site, which was the plaintiff's status.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law12 NYCRR 23-1.33Personal InjuryConstruction Site SafetyDebris AccidentReargumentAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationScope of Regulation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,558 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