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
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 The appeal from the initial order was dismissed as superseded by an amended order.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

Misseritti v. Mark IV Construction Co.

The case involves a plaintiff's decedent who was injured when a wall collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing it was a 'falling object' case. The court disagreed, holding that the wall's collapse, being at the same level as the worksite, did not fall under the statute's protection for elevation-related risks. Therefore, summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was granted in favor of the defendant. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment to Mark IV Construction Co., the general contractor, on its third-party complaint against the decedent’s employer, as the general contractor did not direct, control, or supervise the employer's work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction AccidentWall CollapseFalling Object DoctrineElevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintGeneral Contractor LiabilityEmployer LiabilityWorker Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garner v. Behrman Bros. IV, LLC

This case involves plaintiffs Winifred Marie Garner and Sophia Theus, who filed a putative class action against Behrman Brothers IV, LLC and Behrman Brothers Management Corp. (collectively, "Behrman"). Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages and benefits under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), alleging that Behrman, as a "single employer" with Atherotech, Inc., failed to provide 60 days' notice before mass layoffs in February 2016 when Atherotech facilities closed. Behrman moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) and to drop defendants under Rule 21. The Court denied all of Behrman's motions, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Behrman's liability under the WARN Act based on factors like common ownership, common directors/officers, unity of personnel policies, and de facto control.

WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffPlant ClosingUnpaid WagesEmployee BenefitsCorporate LiabilitySingle Employer DoctrineMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
References
30
Case No. 518427
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2014

CorreavAnderson

Leeanne M. Correa, an exercise rider, was injured by an anvil falling from a co-worker's, Robert A. Anderson IV's, vehicle while borrowing a hat during employment. She and her husband filed a negligence action against Anderson. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, ruling it was barred by the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6), as both were co-employees and the injury occurred during employment, for which plaintiff received benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that Anderson's act of lending a hat, even with the unrelated anvil, was within the scope of employment, thus triggering the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law and barring the negligence claim.

Co-employee negligenceWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivityScope of employmentPersonal injury claimSummary judgment dismissalAppellate reviewWorkplace incidentHorse racing industryNew York lawAnvil accident
References
11
Case No. ADJ10306129
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

MICHAEL LAMBERT vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY REGION IV, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration filed by the State of California, Department of Forestry Region IV and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Board found the petition was untimely as it was filed on October 24, 2016, three days after the jurisdictional deadline of October 21, 2016. This deadline was calculated based on the service of the original decision by mail on September 26, 2016. The Board reiterated that filing by mail is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board within the statutory timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelydismissalservice by mailjurisdictionalOpinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationuntimely filingOctober 21
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Shawn X.

The case concerns an appeal by a respondent, previously convicted of sodomy and rape, who was civilly committed under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for being a sex offender requiring civil management. The jury found he suffered from a mental abnormality predisposing him to sex offenses. On appeal, the respondent challenged the jury's finding as against the weight of the evidence, arguing against expert testimony and the use of the DSM-IV. He also claimed evidentiary errors and that the imposed regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) infringed upon his parental and marital rights. The court affirmed the lower court's order, finding no errors in the jury's verdict, the evidentiary rulings, or the SIST conditions, which included provisions for future judicial review regarding his son.

Sex Offender Civil ManagementMental AbnormalityPedophilia DiagnosisDSM-IV CriteriaExpert Witness TestimonyPost-Release SupervisionParole ViolationEvidentiary ErrorsParental RightsStrict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment (SIST)
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Yi Ching Liu

The case concerns defendant Yi Ching Liu, who was charged with using unauthorized credit card convenience checks and pled guilty. Liu sought a downward departure from sentencing guidelines, claiming diminished capacity due to pathological gambling addiction. Expert testimony from psychotherapist Stephen Block, supported by DSM IV criteria, confirmed Liu's severe addiction and a direct link to his criminal acts. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Weinstein, granted a four-point downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, resulting in a 24-month incarceration sentence. The decision emphasizes that pathological gambling can constitute significantly reduced mental capacity for sentencing purposes, citing precedent and the evolving understanding of this disorder.

Diminished CapacityPathological GamblingSentencing GuidelinesDownward DepartureImpulse Control DisorderFraudCredit Card FraudCriminal SentencingDSM IVFederal Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anson v. National Maritime Union of America

Plaintiffs, a union member and a committee of union office candidates, sought to prevent incumbent union officers from enacting constitutional amendments and to enjoin the 1984 union convention. Defendants, the National Maritime Union and its officers, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over claims related to the 1983 election due to an ongoing Department of Labor investigation and the exclusive remedy provided by Title IV of the LMRDA. Furthermore, the court found it could not enjoin the 1984 convention as it had already commenced. The court concluded that all of plaintiffs' claims, though framed under Title I of the LMRDA, were in substance challenges to election processes governed exclusively by Title IV, thus requiring administrative remedies with the Secretary of Labor. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.

Labor LawUnion ElectionsLMRDA Title IVSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissAdministrative RemediesExclusivity ProvisionUnion ConstitutionPreliminary ReliefElection Violations
References
7
Case No. 91 Civ. 1499 (LAP)
Regular Panel Decision

Radio-Electronics Officers Union, District 3 v. Radio Officers Joint Employment Committee

This case concerns a dispute over the rightful president of the Radio-Electronics Officers Union (ROU) and the disbursement of funds owed by two ROU-affiliated plans. Plaintiff-intervenor Jim H. DeLong moved to dismiss the action, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The primary issue revolved around whether the court could determine the ROU's valid presidency, which would constitute a challenge to prior union elections under the LMRDA Title IV. The court found that despite attempts to frame the claims under ERISA, the core of the controversy required validating one of two contested ROU elections. Since LMRDA Title IV provides the exclusive statutory remedy for such election challenges, and the Secretary of Labor did not initiate the suit, the federal court lacked the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to proceed.

LMRDA Title IVERISA JurisdictionUnion Presidency DisputeElection ValidityExclusive Statutory RemedySubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Court DismissalLabor Union GovernanceInternal Union RemediesSecretary of Labor Intervention
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zemaitis v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff suing Merrill Lynch and Geoffrey Conklin under the Federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for common law fraud. The plaintiff alleged "churning," "unsuitability," "misstatements and omissions," and "common law fraud." Defendants moved to dismiss the "unsuitability" claim (Count II) and to compel arbitration for the "common law fraud" claim (Count IV). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count II, stating that the circuit does not recognize a cause of action for unsuitability. Furthermore, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Count IV, instead ordering a stay of arbitration for that claim until the federal securities law claims are judicially resolved, ensuring the preservation of federal court jurisdiction over those non-arbitrable issues. This approach prevents potential collateral estoppel consequences from prior arbitration.

Securities fraudChurningUnsuitability claimsMisstatements and omissionsCommon law fraudArbitrationPendent jurisdictionFederal Securities Exchange Act of 1934Rule 10b-5Motion to dismiss
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 66 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