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. 2020 NY Slip Op 04524 [186 AD3d 23]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2020

Matter of Doris

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) initiated a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Lawrence A. Doris following client complaints of professional misconduct, including failure to file a personal injury case and lack of communication. Despite numerous attempts by the AGC through letters, emails, and a judicial subpoena, Mr. Doris failed to respond to the allegations or appear for a deposition. The AGC subsequently moved for his immediate suspension from the practice of law due to his willful noncompliance and failure to cooperate with their investigation. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the AGC's motion, finding that Mr. Doris's conduct warranted immediate suspension. This decision underscores the importance of attorney cooperation in disciplinary matters and protection of the public interest.

Attorney disciplineProfessional misconductNoncooperation with investigationImmediate suspensionGrievance CommitteeClient complaintFailure to communicateJudicial subpoenaPublic interest threatAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Havas v. Victory Paper Stock Co.

This appeal concerns Leslie Havas, an employee of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, who was injured while manually loading heavy waste paper bales onto a Victory Paper Stock Company truck. The accident occurred due to an unsecured, improvised ramp after the hydraulic lift was out of service. Havas sued Victory, who then brought Morgan in as a third-party defendant. A jury found both liable, apportioning fault equally. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding Victory owed no duty and committed no proximate negligence. This court, in an opinion by Judge Fuchsberg, reverses the Appellate Division's order, asserting that the trial judge properly submitted the case to the jury. The decision emphasizes the foreseeability of the accident and the commingled efforts of both companies' employees, which established a mutual duty of care. The case is remitted to the Appellate Division for a review of the facts.

NegligenceForeseeabilityDuty of CareJoint EffortsContributory NegligenceJury RoleAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryLoading AccidentThird-Party Liability
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05621 [187 AD3d 1623]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.

This case concerns the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation, specifically an appeal and cross-appeal stemming from a jury verdict in favor of Lynn M. Stock, as executrix of the estate of James G. Stock, against Jenkins Bros. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, which had denied both parties' posttrial motions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that asbestos from Jenkins Bros.' products was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's mesothelioma, rejecting the defendant's challenges to specific causation. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the jury verdict sheet's presentation of damages for loss of services and society.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaCausationExpert TestimonyJury VerdictPosttrial MotionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial FactorWarning DefectProduct Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Plaintiff sustained severe hand injuries while moving an 800-pound wire reel down stairs using an improvised pulley system on defendant's premises. The District Court granted judgment for the plaintiff, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable due to a gravity-related risk. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the statute's applicability to elevation-related injuries and direct causation by gravity, particularly when neither the worker nor an object directly falls. The Court of Appeals determined that the key inquiry is whether the injury resulted from inadequate protection against a risk arising from a significant elevation differential. It concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct consequence of the force of gravity on the inadequately secured reel, making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The first certified question was answered affirmatively, and the second was deemed unnecessary.

Labor LawScaffolding LawElevation DifferentialGravity RiskConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryMakeshift DeviceCertified QuestionsNew York Court of AppealsStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03856 [172 AD3d 1658]
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2019

Matter of Cozzi v. American Stock Exch.

The case involves Guy Cozzi, who appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's denial of his application to reopen his workers' compensation claim. Cozzi had previously filed a claim related to the World Trade Center cleanup operations, which was denied as untimely and not meeting the criteria for the exception under Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A. The Board affirmed the initial denial, and the Appellate Division also affirmed the denial of reconsideration. In 2017, Cozzi applied to reopen the claim, citing additional voluntary activities at the site. The Board denied the reopening application, citing a lack of jurisdiction under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as the claim was disallowed after a trial on the merits and more than seven years had passed since the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationWorld Trade CenterCleanup OperationsClaim ReopeningJurisdictionTimelinessBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2002

Conigliaro v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (NYSE) and Building Maintenance Service LLC, dismissing the personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision. Against NYSE, the court found the plaintiff to be a special employee, which barred the action under the Workers’ Compensation Law. For Building Maintenance Service LLC, the court determined there was no genuine issue of fact regarding whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition that caused the plaintiff’s fall.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation LawPremises LiabilityAppellate DecisionAffirmationNotice RequirementKings CountyNew York Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ1528926 (LBO 0378215)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

DORIS SIMPSON vs. ORC MACRO, LIBERTY MUTUAL ORANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award of back surgery for applicant Doris Simpson. The Board found the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion regarding industrial causation for the surgery was inadequately explained. The case is returned to the trial level for further medical development, specifically to clarify whether the 2006 industrial injury contributed to the applicant's need for the surgery. The applicant has a history of prior lumbar surgeries and pre-existing degenerative conditions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDORIS SIMPSONORC MACROLIBERTY MUTUAL ORANGEADJ1528926LBO 0378215OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONPrimary Treating PhysicianDr. Mudiyam
References
2
Case No. VNO 0446920, VNO 0446922
Regular
Feb 28, 2008

Doris Ticsay vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/ DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for Doris Ticsay, rescinding a previous order that found no industrial injury to her upper extremities, knees, and headaches. This decision stems from Ticsay's assertion that the Agreed Medical Examiner's report, which formed the basis of the prior ruling, contained factual inaccuracies regarding the x-rays of her knees. The Board is remanding the case to allow Ticsay to obtain a further evaluation with the Agreed Medical Examiner to clarify these discrepancies and issue a new report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDoris TicsayCounty of Los AngelesDepartment of Social Servicesindustrial injurynew and further disabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerDr. Bernard Coopermanknee x-rayserroneous record
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buchanan v. Scoville

Petitioner Doris G. B. Buchanan sustained a neck injury in a 1989 automobile accident during her employment. She later settled a third-party negligence action for $15,000 without informing ITT Hartford Insurance Company, her employer's carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled she forfeited future benefits due to non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). Buchanan sought nunc pro tunc approval from the Supreme Court, which was dismissed as untimely. The Appellate Court reversed this dismissal, holding that delay alone is insufficient for dismissal and the insurer must demonstrate prejudice. The case was remitted to Supreme Court to determine if the settlement terms were reasonable and if ITT Hartford was prejudiced.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party SettlementNunc Pro TuncPrejudiceTimelinessAppellate ReviewRemittalInsurance Carrier LiabilityWorkers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5)Permanent Disability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Papyrus Technology Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Papyrus Technology Corp. sued New York Stock Exchange, Inc. for patent infringement and breach of contract related to wireless device patents. The NYSE counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment and moved to disqualify Papyrus's counsel, Mr. Tedd Van Buskirk and his firm Frommer Lawrence & Haug. NYSE alleged Van Buskirk had access to confidential NYSE information while previously an associate at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, which represents NYSE. The court found that Van Buskirk must be disqualified due to his prior exposure to NYSE confidences. However, the court denied the disqualification of Frommer, finding that the firm's timely erected and effective screening measures adequately isolated Van Buskirk and prevented the imputation of his disqualification to the entire firm.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestLegal EthicsImputed DisqualificationScreening MechanismsPatent InfringementBreach of ContractConfidential InformationAttorney-Client PrivilegeFormer Representation
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 148 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