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. ADJ8897034
Regular
May 03, 2018

MARIA CUELLAR DE PATLAN vs. GELSONS MARKET, SPRINGFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY

Lien claimant Mesa Pharmacy's petition for removal was granted because the WCJ erred in continuing the lien trial to notify the anti-fraud unit (AFU), as this violated due process and the AFU lacked standing. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's order, finding that documents now available on the DIR website likely obviate the need for AFU involvement. The matter was taken off calendar to allow parties to review these documents, with a new hearing to be scheduled if a dispute regarding Labor Code section 4615 remains.

RemovalLien ClaimantAnti-Fraud Unit (AFU)Labor Code Section 4615Due ProcessElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Stayed LienPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
5
Case No. ADJ6903715
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

HECTOR HERNANDEZ vs. CERAMIC TILE ART, INC.; ZENITH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order dismissing lien claimants' liens with prejudice for failing to pay a lien activation fee. The lien claimants argued their representative was unable to pay due to a non-functioning DWC website. The Board found the petition for reconsideration was frivolous due to a lack of evidence supporting the website issue claim and is proposing sanctions against the lien claimants' representatives.

Lien activation feePetition for ReconsiderationWCJSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561WCABDismissal with prejudiceDWC websiteLien conference
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Kochanowski

This case involves an appeal of convictions for criminal contempt in the second degree and aggravated harassment in the second degree. The defendant, with the help of a co-worker, created an anonymous website featuring suggestive photographs and contact information of a former girlfriend, leading to harassing phone calls to the complainant. The court affirmed the conviction for aggravated harassment, finding that using a computer to initiate communication, followed by telephone calls, falls under Penal Law § 240.30 (1). However, the criminal contempt conviction was reversed because the order of protection was served after the website's creation and did not specifically direct the defendant to delete the site, meaning the defendant was not sufficiently aware that his prior actions violated the order.

CyberharassmentAggravated HarassmentCriminal ContemptInternet DefamationElectronic CommunicationOrders of ProtectionAppellate ReviewIntent to HarassAnonymity OnlineFreedom of Speech
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Marcus

Defendant Glenn Marcus was convicted of sex trafficking and forced labor stemming from his abusive BDSM relationship with Jodi, who he coerced into performing sexual acts and labor for his commercial website. Marcus moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) did not apply to intimate relationships or consensual BDSM, and that there was insufficient evidence of a nexus between his force/coercion and the commercial sex acts or labor. The court denied both motions, upholding the convictions. The court found the TVPA statutes were broadly applicable, rejecting a narrow interpretation based on intimate relationships, and affirmed that evidence sufficiently demonstrated Marcus's use of non-consensual force and coercion to compel Jodi's participation in commercial sex acts and website-related labor, despite the BDSM context.

Sex TraffickingForced LaborBDSMRule 29 MotionRule 33 MotionTrafficking Victims Protection ActStatutory InterpretationRule of LenityCommercial Sex ActsSexual Exploitation
References
20
Case No. 06-CV-2225(JFB)(AKT)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2010

Fragrancenet.com, Inc. v. Fragrancex.com, Inc.

Plaintiff FragranceNet.com, Inc. sued defendant FragranceX.com, Inc. alleging extensive copyright and trademark infringement, along with related state law violations. FragranceNet claimed FragranceX copied over 900 copyrighted product images from its website and improperly used FragranceNet's "FRAGRANCENET" and "FRAGRANCENET.COM" trademarks in website metatags and Google AdWords, diverting consumer traffic. FragranceX moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the images lacked copyright originality and that FragranceNet did not possess enforceable trademark rights due to issues of ownership transfer and champerty. The Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that FragranceNet had stated plausible claims for both copyright and trademark infringement. The decision emphasized that determinations regarding the originality of copyrighted images and the validity of trademark assignments were factual issues unsuitable for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.

Copyright InfringementTrademark InfringementTrademark DilutionUnfair CompetitionMisappropriationOnline RetailE-commerceDigital ImagesMetatagsGoogle AdWords
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC

This Memorandum and Order addresses defendant Blick Art Materials, LLC's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Victor Andrews, a legally blind individual. Andrews alleges that Blick's website, dickblick.com, is inaccessible to the visually impaired, violating federal, state, and city disability laws, including the ADA. The court denied the motion, ruling that the ADA's Title III, which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, applies to commercial websites. The decision emphasized a broad interpretation of "public accommodation" to include online services, rejecting arguments for dismissal based on physical nexus, primary jurisdiction, and due process concerns related to a lack of specific web accessibility regulations. The court found that the plaintiff had stated a claim under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, and directed the parties to proceed with discovery and further litigation, including a "Science Day" to explore available technologies.

Website AccessibilityAmericans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationPublic AccommodationOnline ServicesMotion to DismissStatutory InterpretationNew York State LawNew York City LawVisually Impaired
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benihana of Tokyo, LLC v. Benihana Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Benihana of Tokyo, LLC (plaintiff) and Benihana, Inc. (defendant Benihana America), regarding a license agreement for a Benihana restaurant in Hawaii and alleged trademark infringements. Benihana of Tokyo sought a declaratory judgment that statements on its website did not violate Benihana America's Lanham Act rights and moved to compel arbitration of Benihana America's counterclaims. Benihana America filed counterclaims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, trademark dilution, and breach of contract. The Court determined that the arbitration clause in the License Agreement was mandatory once invoked. It granted Benihana of Tokyo's motion to compel arbitration for some counterclaims related to the Hawaii restaurant, but denied it for others primarily related to website statements unrelated to the Hawaii License Agreement. The Court also denied Benihana of Tokyo's motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint without prejudice.

Arbitration AgreementTrademark InfringementLanham ActLicense AgreementDeclaratory JudgmentCounterclaimsWebsite MisrepresentationContract DisputeFederal Arbitration ActHawaii Restaurant
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Dir.(bodek)

This case addresses the appealability and reviewability of compensation orders issued under County Law § 722-c. The dispute arose from services provided by Hillel Bodek, a social worker, to indigent defendants in New York County, for which the Supreme Court ordered the City of New York to pay $100 per hour, often exceeding statutory norms due to 'extraordinary circumstances'. The Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan for New York City sought reconsideration and fee reduction, citing budget constraints and lower prescribed rates, but was unsuccessful at the Supreme Court and Appellate Division. This Court, after granting leave to appeal, affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that such compensation orders are administrative in nature and not subject to judicial review on their merits by an appellate panel.

Compensation OrderAppellate ReviewCounty Law § 722-cAssigned Counsel PlanSocial Worker FeesExtraordinary CircumstancesJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewNon-reviewable OrdersIndigent Defense
References
7
Case No. 1:12-cv-46
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2018

Lillian Roberts Dir. of Dist. Council 37, Afscme ex rel. Situated v. Cuomo

Plaintiffs, a group of active and retired New York State employees, sued the State and various officials, alleging that a unilateral increase in health insurance contributions for retirees violated the Contracts Clause and Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, breached their collective bargaining agreements, and violated state law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that no contractual right to perpetually fixed premium contribution rates existed and that the increase was a reasonable and necessary response to a significant fiscal crisis. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the collective bargaining agreements did not establish a vested right to fixed retiree health insurance rates and that the state's actions were a legitimate and necessary measure to address its financial distress. All of plaintiffs' claims, including those for breach of contract, due process violations, and state law violations, were dismissed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementHealth Insurance PremiumsRetiree BenefitsContracts ClauseDue Process ClauseSummary JudgmentFiscal CrisisState EmployeesCivil Service LawProperty Interest
References
81
Case No. ADJ1477600 (SAC 0360901)
Regular
Jan 27, 2009

VARINDER KUMAR CHARAYA vs. QUICK STOP MARKET, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND/DIR, RANDEEP DEOL dba QUICK STOP 96, POOJA KAUR

The WCAB dismissed defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied applicant's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedDeniedUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundWCJ ReportVarinder Kumar CharayaPooja KaurQuick Stop MarketADJ1477600
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 30 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