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. ADJ12138014 ADJ10965293
Regular
Jan 21, 2020

DONALD WRIGHT vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

The WCAB denied Defendant Federal Express Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that applicant Donald Wright is entitled to a separate Agreed Medical Evaluator or Qualified Medical Examiner for his cumulative trauma (CT) claim. Defendant argued applicant waived this right by not filing a claim form for the CT claim, citing *Navarro v. City of Montebello*. However, the Board found that while the initial finding of injury AOE/COE was a threshold issue, the entitlement to a separate QME for the CT claim was interlocutory. As Defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, removal was denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDONALD WRIGHTFEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATIONADJ12138014ADJ10965293Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJcumulative trauma (CT) claimpanel qualified medical evaluator (QME)
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 1998

Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

This class action was commenced by retired Curtiss-Wright employees, represented by the United Steelworkers of America, against Curtiss-Wright Corporation. Plaintiffs alleged that Curtiss-Wright breached its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and violated ERISA by unilaterally terminating retiree health insurance benefits in May 1987, seeking damages and a permanent injunction for lifetime benefits. The central legal question revolved around whether these retiree health insurance benefits were vested for the retirees' lives. Initially, the court denied cross-motions for summary judgment, finding the relevant contract language ambiguous, and a jury subsequently found a breach of the CBA by Curtiss-Wright. However, the court later re-examined the documents in light of new Second Circuit precedent, which provided a narrower standard for interpreting CBAs and insurance plan documents concerning vesting. The court ultimately concluded that the CBA and insurance plan documents unambiguously established that benefits were tied to the specific durational clauses of the agreements and were terminable upon their expiration. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA was denied as duplicative. Consequently, all of the plaintiffs' motions for judgment, including for a permanent injunction, were denied.

Employee Retirement Income Security ActLabor Management Relations ActRetiree Health BenefitsVested BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementInsurance AgreementFiduciary DutySummary Plan DescriptionSummary Annual ReportContract Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wright v. Colvin

Plaintiff Kimmey Wright sought judicial review of a final decision by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin, denying her applications for Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Judge William F. Kuntz, II presided over the motions for judgment on the pleadings from both parties. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had previously denied Wright's applications, finding she was not disabled under the five-step SSA process, determining she had severe impairments but an adequate residual functional capacity (RFC) for certain jobs. Wright challenged the ALJ's decision, arguing a violation of the treating physician rule regarding Dr. Lubin's testimony and that the vocational expert's (VE) testimony did not reflect her RFC. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion and granted the Commissioner's, upholding the ALJ's determination that the ALJ provided sufficient reasons to discount Dr. Lubin's opinion and that the VE's testimony was based on a correct RFC.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleVocational Expert TestimonyResidual Functional CapacitySchizophreniaMajor Depressive DisorderPersonality Disorder
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pietsch v. Moog, Inc.

Donald Pietsch, a bricklayer employed by Wright Associates Building Corp., was injured while working at a Moog, Inc. construction site when he fell between a cross wall and a scaffold. The Supreme Court initially denied Pietsch's motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), citing a lack of corroborating evidence beyond his statements. The appellate court overturned this, finding sufficient evidence from Pietsch and co-workers to establish Moog's statutory duty violation and proximate causation, and clarified that a fall into a gap between a wall and scaffolding is covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred by denying Moog's motion for conditional indemnification against Wright. Moog's liability was statutory, while Wright, as the general contractor, had sole control over the work and scaffolding, and was contractually responsible for all safety precautions, thus entitling Moog to indemnification.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor LawStatutory DutyIndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityUnsafe Workplace
References
11
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04445
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2024

Argueta v. Hall & Wright, LLC

The plaintiff, Jose Daniel Santiago Argueta, a carpenter, sustained injuries after falling from a sloped roof during a home renovation project. He subsequently sued the property owner, 520X Residential, LLC, and the construction manager, Hall and Wright, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to both defendants, dismissing the Labor Law causes of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, ruling that Hall and Wright, LLC, lacked the necessary supervisory control to be considered a statutory agent, and 520X Residential, LLC, qualified for the homeowner's exemption, as the work was for residential use and they did not direct or control the work.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentHomeowner ExemptionStatutory AgentSupervisory ControlElevation-Related HazardAppellate ReviewRoofing Work
References
28
Case No. 00 Civ. 7635(GBD)(FM)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2004

Wright v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Plaintiff Rodney Wright filed an employment discrimination action against his former employer, Goldman, Sachs & Company, and several employees, alleging disparate treatment, denial of promotion, and constructive discharge based on race under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas recommended granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. District Judge George B. Daniels adopted the Report and Recommendation, finding no clear error. The court concluded that Wright failed to establish a prima facie case for failure-to-promote, constructive discharge, or disparate treatment, and that his Section 1981 and 1983 claims also lacked merit. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

employment discriminationsummary judgmentdisparate treatmentconstructive dischargeTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983race discriminationmotion to dismissfederal court
References
53
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03320 [42 NY3d 708]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

People v. Wright

Freddie T. Wright appealed his conviction, challenging the denial of his Batson challenge to the People's peremptory strikes on prospective jurors and his motion to suppress identification testimony. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding record support for the race-neutral reasons provided for the strikes. The Court also concluded that the showup identification procedure used by the police was not unduly suggestive given its close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime. The dissent raised concerns regarding the trial court's Batson analysis and the suggestiveness of the identification procedures.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationshowup identificationunduly suggestivedue processcriminal procedureappellate reviewtrial court discretion
References
45
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06233
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Wright v. Pennings

The plaintiff, Brian P. Wright, sustained personal injuries when an unsecured 20-foot extension ladder fell and struck him while a coworker was installing wiring. The ladder slipped on a rubber mat covered in cow manure and hay. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding the plaintiff established prima facie that the unsecured ladder violated Labor Law § 240 (1) and proximately caused his injuries. The court also found the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200 claims, and the common-law negligence claim.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseElevation-Related RiskIndustrial CodeNegligence
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1994

Hunt v. Hunt

This case involves an appeal stemming from a dispute between two brothers, Donald and Edward G. Hunt, over the ownership of Hunt Brothers Contractors, Inc. Donald commenced an action claiming 50% shareholder ownership in the corporation and seeking an accounting, which Edward denied. Edward counter-sued for money damages, alleging Donald improperly withdrew funds from joint bank accounts. The Supreme Court dismissed Donald's claim and ruled in favor of Edward in the second action. Donald appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court found that Donald failed to prove his 50% ownership claim by a preponderance of the evidence, noting inconsistencies in his statements and lack of capital contribution. The appellate court also deferred to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, and Donald abandoned his appeal regarding the damages awarded to Edward.

Shareholder disputeCorporate ownershipFamily business disputeEvidentiary burdenCredibility assessmentAppellate reviewJoint bank accountsBusiness assetsStock ownershipCorporate records
References
9
Case No. 534402
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Donald Oberg

Donald Oberg, an automobile mechanic, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his request to amend his claim to include bilateral shoulder injuries. Oberg had an established claim for neck injuries from an August 2020 work-related motor vehicle accident. Conflicting medical opinions arose regarding the causal relationship of his bilateral shoulder injuries, with his treating orthopedist, Joseph Giovinazzo, opining they were causally related, and independent medical examiner Vito Loguidice concluding they were not. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially credited Giovinazzo and amended the claim, but the Board rescinded this, crediting Loguidice's opinion based on medical evidence and accident video. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination to disallow the amendment.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating PhysicianAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionConflicting Medical OpinionsMotor Vehicle Accident
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 200 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