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. 7250/00, 491/00, 6197/00, 11473/99
Regular Panel Decision

Ballard v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

The case involves motions for consolidation and severance of four personal injury actions stemming from asbestos exposure at Eastman Kodak Company. The plaintiffs sought to consolidate the Ballard (7250/00) and Cooros (491/00) cases, and separately, the Duemmel (6197/00) and Keller (11473/99) cases. Defendants CBS Corporation, R.E. Hebert and Company, Inc., and Rochester Industrial Insulation, Inc., opposed consolidation, with the latter also moving for severance. Presiding Judge Raymond E. Cornelius, J., reviewed criteria for consolidation in mass tort asbestos litigation, including common worksite, occupation, exposure time, disease type, and plaintiff status (living/deceased). The court denied the consolidation of Ballard and Cooros, finding undue prejudice due to differing diseases and direct/indirect exposure among deceased and living claimants. Similarly, the court denied the full consolidation of Duemmel and Keller but granted severance for the deceased Pschirrer claimant from the other Duemmel plaintiffs, allowing his claim to be consolidated with the Keller case due to similarities in occupation and indirect exposure.

Asbestos LitigationCase ConsolidationCase SeverancePersonal InjuryMass TortPrejudice ArgumentCPLR 602(a)CPLR 603MesotheliomaAsbestosis
References
13
Case No. 00-CR-159A, 00-CR-185A
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Boorman

This case concerns the government's appeal of a Magistrate Judge's decision to release defendant Russell James Boorman on bail, despite multiple indictments for drug trafficking and firearm offenses. Defendant Boorman was initially indicted on drug charges (00-CR-159A) and subsequently on additional drug and weapon charges found during his arrest (00-CR-185A). Magistrate Judge Foschio denied the government's detention motions and set bail for both indictments. District Judge Arcara conducted a de novo review, considering the nature of the offenses, the weight of evidence, and the defendant's extensive criminal history, which included prior violent and drug-related felony convictions, some committed while under court supervision. The Court found clear and convincing evidence that no conditions would reasonably assure community safety, given the defendant's violent past and likelihood to re-offend, thereby revoking the release orders and ordering detention.

Pretrial detentionDrug traffickingMethamphetamineMarijuanaFirearm possessionCriminal historyViolent behaviorRebuttable presumptionDanger to communityBail revocation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2022

Borelli v. JB IV, LLC

Plaintiff Patrick K. Borelli sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while performing exterior painting work at a property owned by defendant JB IV, LLC and leased to defendant Champz of Binghamton, LLC. He and his wife commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion for summary judgment by dismissing two regulatory violations under Labor Law § 241 (6), but otherwise denied both parties' motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining Labor Law claims, finding unresolved questions of fact regarding the creation of the dangerous condition and the adequacy of safety devices provided. The appeal from the initial order was dismissed as superseded by an amended order.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary Judgment DenialLadder FallConstruction AccidentsProperty Owner LiabilityContractor LiabilitySafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code Violations
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kozera v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Plaintiff Ted Kozera and other union members (Mekeel, Filardi) filed a lawsuit against the IBEW, Local 501, and NECA Chapter under the LMRA and LMRDA, alleging improper trusteeship and labor/management infractions. Kozera presented five claims, including restrictions on the right to sue and free speech, improper trusteeship, and unapproved collective bargaining agreements. The Court found in favor of the IBEW on the Article IV, § 3(9) and Trusteeship claims. However, the Court ruled in favor of Kozera against the IBEW and NECA Chapter on the Small Work Agreement claims, awarding nominal damages of $2.00 and $1.00 respectively, for breaching the IBEW Constitution and the 1989-92 CBA by implementing an unapproved small work agreement. The Pavillion Project claim was dismissed as not properly before the Court due to belated assertion.

Labor LawUnion TrusteeshipCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActFree Speech RightsRight to SueUnion DemocracyNominal DamagesUnapproved Agreement
References
29
Case No. 00 Civ. 8166
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Eversley

Plaintiff Beatrice Morris was sexually assaulted by corrections officer Gilbert Eversley in April 1999 while she was an inmate. She filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Eversley. After two trials, Morris was awarded $1,000 in compensatory and $15,000 in punitive damages. Morris moved for attorneys' fees and costs, seeking $295,818.00 in fees and $58,228.23 in costs. Eversley argued the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) capped fees, but the court held that the PLRA cap did not apply to this case. Applying the lodestar method, the court awarded Morris $154,900 in fees and $25,000 in costs, for a total of $179,900.

Prison Litigation Reform ActAttorneys' FeesLodestar MethodCivil RightsSexual AssaultCorrections Officer MisconductEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentDamages AwardPro Bono Representation
References
43
Case No. 2014-2107 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2017

Renelique v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Civil Court judgment regarding assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, as an assignee, sought to recover for services rendered, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment. The Civil Court initially granted the plaintiff a principal sum of $11.45, dismissing the remainder of the complaint. The Appellate Term reversed this decision, concluding that the defendant failed to prove that the offered sum would fully compensate the plaintiff according to the workers' compensation fee schedule, thus denying the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. However, the plaintiff also did not establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for any amount exceeding $11.45. The court affirmed the plaintiff's right to statutory interest on both paid and future payments.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewStatutory interestTimely denialAssigned claimsInsurance coverageCivil CourtAppellate Term
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04257 [231 AD3d 250]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2024

Liciaga v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Robert Liciaga, who sustained severe personal injuries including paralysis due to an accident involving the New York City Transit Authority, was awarded substantial damages by a jury, including $40,000,000 for future medical expenses. The New York City Transit Authority appealed, contending that it was entitled to a collateral source hearing under CPLR 4545 to determine if Liciaga's future medical expenses could be offset by insurance coverage available through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), despite his uninsured status. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's denial of this request. It ruled that the defendant should be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that the plaintiff's future medical expenses could be reasonably certain to be reduced by available ACA insurance, emphasizing the statutory intent of CPLR 4545 to prevent double recovery and the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the collateral source hearing, while other aspects of the judgment, including reduced pain and suffering awards, were affirmed.

Personal InjuryCollateral SourceCPLR 4545Affordable Care ActFuture Medical ExpensesDouble RecoveryMitigation of DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictNegligence
References
59
Case No. CV-22-2032
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

Matter of Deliso v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Claimant John Deliso filed an occupational disease claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and repetitive stress injuries. His treating physician, Christopher Kyriakides, assessed permanent impairment. The employer, New York City Transit Authority, alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, presenting surveillance videos that reportedly contradicted Deliso's statements about his functional abilities during permanency evaluations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found that Deliso made material misrepresentations, disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of material misrepresentations made to influence his workers' compensation claim and that the imposed discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion given the egregious nature of the deception.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Stress InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law Section 114-aMaterial MisrepresentationFraudSurveillance VideoIndemnity BenefitsDisqualification
References
12
Case No. CV-23-0409
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

Matter of Collins v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Jennel Collins, a cleaner for the New York City Transit Authority, sustained work-related injuries and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, the employer's report indicated acceptance of liability, but they later controverted the claim, arguing untimeliness due to the case not being indexed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The WCLJ initially found the employer waived defenses, but the Board reversed, finding the notice of controversy timely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter to the Board. The court found that the Board failed to address the claimant's arguments regarding the employer's binding reports of injury and potential violations of Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (a) and 12 NYCRR 300.37 (c), thus precluding meaningful judicial review.

Workers' Compensation LawNotice of ControversyTimeliness of FilingPrima Facie Medical EvidenceCausal RelationshipAdministrative AppealRemittalWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer DefensesAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

Matter of Daniels v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Mary Daniels, a train conductor, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging work-related injuries to her right shoulder, right elbow, and right hand from a March 4, 2022 incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie medical evidence for injuries including her neck, but ultimately established the claim only for the shoulder and elbow, finding no causally-related neck injury. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that while treating physicians opined on a causally-related neck injury, the claimant herself did not report neck pain in her initial claim or job injury report and denied it during the hearing, thereby undermining the factual basis for the medical opinions.

Workers' CompensationCausationNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryElbow InjuryCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewTreating PhysicianOrthopedic Surgeon
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 565 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