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

Singer v. Bell

Plaintiffs Steven and Dulce Singer, New York residents, sued multiple New Jersey residents, including Sheldon Liebowitz and his law firm, Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Clark, Esqs. The action stemmed from a New Jersey matrimonial litigation where Steven Singer failed to pay child support to his ex-wife, Emily Singer Bell. An arrest warrant was issued for Singer for $48,031 in arrearages. Plaintiffs alleged that other defendants lured Steven Singer to New Jersey, where he was arrested and detained, violating his constitutional rights (Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments) and civil rights (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985). The specific defendants (Liebowitz and his firm) moved to dismiss the action against them, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction in New York as they do no business there and did not participate in the alleged luring scheme. Plaintiffs claimed jurisdiction under New York Civ.Prac.Law § 302(a)(2) or (3), asserting the defendants conspired with others who committed acts in New York. The court found that plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of conspiracy and presented only speculation and conjecture without evidentiary facts. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss the action against Liebowitz and his firm for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionMotion to DismissConspiracyCivil RightsFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 198542 U.S.C. § 1983New York Civil Practice Law § 302(a)
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singer v. Salomon Bros.

James A. Singer, a former managing director at Salomon Brothers, Inc., alleged discriminatory dismissal based on his disability, breach of contract, and quantum meruit after his employment was terminated following a cancer diagnosis. Salomon Brothers moved to stay Singer's action and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in Singer's U-4 form. Singer contended that his state discrimination claims were not arbitrable and that the U-4 form constituted an employment contract, thus falling under the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) employment contract exemption. The court, however, following US Supreme Court precedent, ruled that the U-4 form was a contract with the securities exchanges, not the employer, and therefore not exempt from the FAA. Concluding that arbitration is a favored means of dispute resolution, even for discrimination claims, and that Singer failed to demonstrate that arbitration would be an inadequate forum, the court granted Salomon Brothers' motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFederal Arbitration ActU-4 FormSecurities IndustryNew York Human Rights LawMotion to Compel ArbitrationInterstate CommerceWrongful Termination
References
9
Case No. ADJ6540051, ADJ6540050
Regular
Jun 16, 2010

CHARLOTTE SINGER vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by applicant Craig Singer (deceased) against the County of Fresno. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the appeal challenging the findings of fact and order denying the petition for removal was unsuccessful.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings of FactOrder Denying PetitionCounty of FresnoPermissibly Self-InsuredClaims Management Inc.ADJ6540051Deceased ApplicantAdministrative Law Judge Report
References
0
Case No. ADJ1805486
Regular
Jul 01, 2010

SUZANNE SINGER vs. DISNEYLAND, DISNEY WORLD WIDE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant Suzanne Singer's petition for reconsideration because it was a successive petition. Singer sought reconsideration of a prior decision that affirmed the denial of her industrial injury claim from October 7, 2004. The Board found that Singer was not newly aggrieved by the prior decision and her only recourse was a writ of review, not another petition for reconsideration. Therefore, the Board dismissed her petition.

successive petitionpetition for reconsiderationindustrial injuryspecial missionwrit of reviewAppeals BoardWCJdeviationresume missionintoxicated
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1999

Craig v. Boudrot

Plaintiff Kelly Craig sued the New York branch of the Screen Actor’s Guild (NYSAG) to compel a run-off election for a board of directors seat after a tie with incumbent Jonathan Derwin. NYSAG delayed the run-off, citing a pending Department of Labor (DOL) investigation and concerns about practicability and cost. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kaplan, found NYSAG’s refusal to hold the run-off violated its own Rules of Procedure and lacked good faith, demonstrating an intent to favor Derwin. The court granted an injunction mandating the run-off election to protect union members' voting rights. However, Craig's claims regarding the choice of ballot counter and the immediate removal of Derwin were dismissed, the latter for non-joinder.

Union ElectionsLabor LawVoting RightsInjunctionRun-off ElectionBoard of DirectorsLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActUnion GovernanceJudicial ReviewBallot Dispute
References
15
Case No. ADJ6973825
Regular
May 21, 2012

MONICA BENARD vs. JENNY CRAIG, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a penalty imposed on Jenny Craig for unreasonably delaying authorization for applicant Monica Benard's chiropractic treatment. The WCJ found a 25% penalty for the delay, which Jenny Craig appealed, arguing the delay was due to the applicant's choice of a chiropractor outside their Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Appeals Board affirmed the unreasonable delay finding but reduced the penalty to 20% of the delayed treatment's value, citing a failure in case management rather than intentional disregard. Jurisdiction was reserved for the parties to adjust the penalty amount.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMonica BenardJenny CraigSedgwick CMSADJ6973825ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code section 5814Medical Provider Network (MPN)chiropractic treatment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DaBiere v. Craig

Plaintiffs Clement and Anita DaBiere sued defendants for personal injuries sustained when they slipped and fell on an external stairway at defendants' partially completed home. The plaintiffs alleged negligence due to a slippery condition and lack of handrails. The jury found defendants negligent but not the proximate cause of injuries. The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. Defendants appealed this decision. The appellate court found that the jury's verdict could be fairly interpreted based on the evidence presented regarding proximate cause. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to set aside the verdict was deemed an improvident exercise of discretion. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the plaintiffs' motion, and reinstated the jury's original verdict.

Premises LiabilityPersonal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSetting Aside VerdictNew TrialLandowner DutyHandrails
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marley v. Ibelli

J. Craig Marley, a former employee of the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, sued his co-workers, Juliette Ibelli and Cordelia Rose, for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with a contract. The defendants, federal employees of the Smithsonian Institution, removed the case to federal court, seeking to substitute the United States as the defendant and to dismiss the claims. The court granted the substitution, finding the co-workers acted within the scope of employment. It then dismissed the assault, battery, and tortious interference claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act's intentional torts exception, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failing to meet the outrageous conduct standard. Marley's motions to remand and amend his complaint were denied.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCAWestfall ActSovereign ImmunityScope of EmploymentIntentional Torts ExceptionAssaultBatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious Interference with Contract
References
24
Case No. ADJ226519 (SDO 0302236) ADJ488924 (SDO 0329999)
Regular
May 23, 2011

Craig Stevens vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the applicant, Craig Stevens, sought removal of an order continuing his case to a mandatory settlement conference. Stevens contended entitlement to temporary disability and spinal surgery, and alleged ex parte communication with the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Harvey Wieseltier, necessitating his disqualification. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal, adopting the WCJ's report and noting the petition was not correctly verified. The underlying issues of medical treatment and temporary disability remain for future proceedings.

Petition for RemovalExpedited HearingMandatory Settlement ConferenceTemporary Disability IndemnitySpinal SurgeryAgreed Medical EvaluatorDisqualificationEx Parte CommunicationLine InstallerIndustrial Injuries
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Love v. N. Y. S. Craig School

The claimant, a senior attendant at Craig School, was granted a one-year educational leave with full pay to pursue practical nursing. While traveling from her home in Dansville to Monroe Community Hospital in Rochester for her studies, she was injured in an automobile collision. The Workmen's Compensation Board and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed an award of benefits, finding her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. Jasen, J., dissenting, argued that travel to and from employment is generally not a covered activity under the Workmen's Compensation Law unless necessitated by the particular type of employment. The dissent contended that the claimant had voluntarily changed her zone of employment to Monroe Community Hospital, and her travel risks were personal, not peculiar to her employment.

Educational leaveCourse of employmentTravel injuryCommuting ruleWorkers' compensation benefitsDissenting opinionZone of employmentSpecial mission doctrineEmployer benefitInjury during commute
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 60 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