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
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ10933682
Regular
Dec 04, 2020

AMY LI vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by Essential Interpreting Inc. (cost petitioner) concerning its claim for deposition preparation interpreting services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that the cost petitioner failed to prove its services were reasonable and necessary under Labor Code section 5811. The defendant, Kaiser Permanente, had specifically stated in its deposition notice that it would provide the interpreter for both preparation and deposition time. Since the cost petitioner did not demonstrate why using an interpreter of its choosing was necessary over the one provided by the defendant, their claim for reimbursement was denied.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5811Labor Code Section 5813deposition preparationinterpreting servicescost petitionerapplicantdefendantWCJ
References
2
Case No. ADJ14275855
Regular
Jan 20, 2023

MARIA ANA TAYROS vs. CITY OF GREENFIELD, ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding a prior order compelling payment to a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME). The defendant sought to avoid paying the QME an additional deposition fee after a prior deposition was aborted due to technical issues, despite having paid for preparation and attempted appearance. The Board found that the QME was entitled to the statutory minimum two-hour payment for the rescheduled deposition, including preparation time, as the initial failure to depose was not the QME's fault. The Board also clarified that the defendant's petition was treated as one for reconsideration, not removal, and was denied on its merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Deposition FeeMedical-Legal TestimonyAdministrative Director Rule 9795Payment of Expert Witness FeeCode of Civil Procedure Section 2034.450Labor Code Section 5710
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Robles v. Merrill Lynch/WFC/L, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied the defendants' motion to compel further deposition of the plaintiff's social worker. This decision was subsequently appealed and unanimously reversed by the appellate court. The appellate panel determined that the plaintiff had waived the applicable privilege under CPLR 4508. This waiver occurred because the plaintiff's bill of particulars affirmatively placed her mental condition in issue by alleging related injuries. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to compel the deposition.

Mental ConditionDepositionPrivilegeWaiverSocial WorkerCPLR 4508Appellate ReversalMotion to CompelBill of ParticularsDiscovery
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Turi v. Five L. Enterprises, Inc.

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant's spouse died in a 1993 work-related accident, leading to an award of death benefits. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier was directed to deposit a substantial sum into the Aggregate Trust Fund (ATF) but failed to do so. The claimant sought to impose a 20% penalty on the carrier for this untimely payment, arguing it violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant lacked standing to request such a penalty. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that issues regarding late deposits into the ATF are between the ATF and the carrier, not the claimant, and are governed by separate regulations (12 NYCRR 393.2).

Aggregate Trust FundDeath BenefitsPenalty ImpositionTimely DepositStandingWorkers' Compensation CarrierWorkers' Compensation BoardLate PaymentActuarial ComputationJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albertson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

The court ruled that rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice do not provide for granting summary judgment in an equity action concerning the determination of title for adverse claimants to a fund held by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Consequently, the previous judgment and order were unanimously reversed, with costs awarded, and the motion was denied.

Summary JudgmentEquity ActionCivil ProcedureAdverse ClaimsFund DisputeReversed Judgment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewster v. First Trust & Deposit Co.

The court denied applications for a stay and to dismiss an appeal. The memorandum clarifies that the filing of a bond did not trigger an automatic stay under sections 594 and 615 of the Civil Practice Act. The court reasoned that the order appealed from was not solely for the payment of money as defined by section 594, and the appellants' bond was not a statutory bond because the order concerned payments by the First Trust & Deposit Company, not the appellants. The court also noted that it had previously, in its discretion, denied a stay, and it adhered to that decision.

Stay applicationAppeal dismissalAutomatic stayCivil Practice ActBondStatutory bondPayment orderDiscretionary stayAppellate procedure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ross v. Nestle Prepared Foods Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Inc., sought damages for injuries sustained while cleaning a machine at work. The Supreme Court dismissed the amended complaint against Nestle, citing the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the 'dual capacity doctrine' should apply since Nestle designed the machine for its employees' exclusive use. The appellate court rejected this contention, referencing prior case law, and unanimously affirmed the lower court's order of dismissal without costs.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityDual Capacity DoctrinePersonal Injury ClaimIndustrial AccidentAppellate Court AffirmanceEmployer LiabilityMachine SafetyNew York Workers' CompensationMotion to Dismiss GrantedEmployee Rights
References
3
Case No. ADJ3213121 (LBO 0361407)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

GLENDA M. BRUCE vs. COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that quashed the applicant's deposition. The applicant amended her claim to include hair loss and a fall after her last deposition. The Board found good cause for an additional deposition, as the defendant did not have notice of these new claims prior to the previous depositions. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit to a fifth deposition specifically addressing the hair loss and fall allegations.

Petition for RemovalQuashed DepositionCompensable ConsequencesAmended ApplicationIndustrial InjuryHair LossFallPrior NoticeFifth DepositionRescinded Order
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 771 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