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

Claim of Cell v. New York City Social Services Department

This legal decision concerns a granted motion to dismiss a cross-appeal initiated by the New York City Social Services Department. The court ruled to dismiss the cross-appeal without awarding any costs to the parties involved. A panel of five justices, including J. P. Kane, Main, Casey, Weiss, and Mikoll, all concurred with this decision. This outcome suggests a resolution to a specific procedural step within a broader legal dispute. The absence of costs indicates the court's discretion not to impose financial penalties related to the dismissal.

Cross AppealMotion to DismissSocial Services DepartmentConcurrenceAppellate Division

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Schlegel Manufacturing Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee, sought $419 in back vacation pay from the defendant, his former employer, under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in Henrietta Justice Court after being denied recovery through the initial steps of the grievance procedure, but before exhausting the final step of binding arbitration. The Monroe County Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. However, the appellate court determined that the employee failed to exhaust all remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement. Citing legal precedents, the court ruled that an employee must complete the grievance procedure, including arbitration, when the union is willing to pursue the grievance. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the judgment, vacated the complaint, and dismissed it, without costs.

Vacation Pay DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of RemediesBinding ArbitrationEmployment LawContractual ObligationAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalComplaint Dismissal

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. BB & BB Management Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted summary judgment to defendants BB and BB Management Corp., Gesher Realty Corp., and Felix Gomez, dismissing the complaint against them. This decision was unanimously affirmed without costs. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the foreseeability of the assault on him. Evidence such as general complaints about criminal elements in the neighborhood, police reports of an apartment robbery, and two incidents of car vandalism were deemed insufficient to demonstrate that the assault was reasonably predictable. Additionally, while the plaintiff testified that the front door lock was broken, there was no evidence indicating how long it had been broken or that the defendants had been notified. Consequently, the defendants' Worker's Compensation defense was rendered moot.

ForeseeabilityAssaultSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityNegligenceWorker's CompensationAppellate ReviewBroken LockCriminal ActivityNotice

References

Case No. 2020-03-0244

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 21, 2020

Johnson, Robert E. v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

Robert E. Johnson, an employee, filed a claim against G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc., his employer, for alleged occupational exposure illnesses and/or injuries sustained as a commercial truck driver on the Kingston Fly Ash Recovery Project between 2012 and 2014. After telephonic mediation, the parties agreed to a dismissal without prejudice. The employee has a third-party tort suit pending for the same claims and is currently working full-time without restrictions. The Court approved the dismissal, allowing the employee to refile the workers' compensation claim in the future if he becomes incapacitated and provides medical proof that the incapacity is over 50% related to his work, pursuant to T.C.A § 50-6-102(14) and T.C.A. § 50-6-303(a). The filing fee was taxed to G.UB.MK.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsOccupational IllnessesDismissal Without PrejudiceTelephonic MediationTrucking IndustryDisputed CompensabilityThird-Party LitigationDOT Medical CertificateStatutory InterpretationAgreed Order

References

Case No. 2020-03-0243

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 24, 2020

Watkins, Michael v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

Michael Watkins, an employee, and G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc., the employer, reached an agreement to dismiss the employee's workers' compensation claim without prejudice. The claim involved alleged occupational exposure illnesses and injuries from Watkins' work as a commercial truck driver between 2011 and 2019. The parties disputed the compensability of these occupational exposures and illnesses. However, they stipulated that Watkins has a pending third-party tort suit related to these claims and is currently working full-time without restrictions. The dismissal allows Watkins to refile his claim in the future if he becomes incapacitated due to an occupational illness proven to be more than 50% related to his work for the employer. The Court taxed a filing fee of $150.00 to G.UB.MK, to be paid within five business days, and mandated the submission of an SD-2 form.

occupational illnessworkers' compensationdismissalwithout prejudicetruck drivervocationalthird-party claimT.C.A.stipulatedcompensability

References

Case No. 2020-03-0245

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 21, 2020

Adkisson, Greg v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

This document is an Agreed Compensation Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice, concerning the case of Greg Adkisson (Employee) against G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc. (Employer). The parties reached this agreement during a telephonic mediation with Specialist Nina Harris on September 17, 2020. The Employee's claims for alleged occupational exposure illnesses and/or injuries, stemming from his work as a heavy equipment operator, are dismissed without prejudice. This allows him to re-file his workers' compensation claim in the future if he becomes partially or totally incapacitated due to an occupational illness, provided it is medically proven to be more than 50% related to his employment, as per T.C.A § 50-6-102(14) and T.C.A. § 50-6-303(a). The Court ordered G.UB.MK to pay a $150.00 filing fee and submit an SD-1 form.

Occupational IllnessHeavy EquipmentSettlement AgreementDismissalTelephonic MediationThird-Party ClaimFuture ClaimsWorkers' CompensationTennessee Law

References

Case No. G-01-CV-670

Regular Panel Decision

Kimmel Ex Rel. Estate of Kimmel v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

This order addresses multiple lawsuits stemming from the tragic 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire collapse, which resulted in twelve deaths and twenty-seven injuries. Plaintiffs alleged that Texas A&M University and various officials violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by depriving victims of substantive due process through deliberate indifference to a state-created danger, and also pursued state law negligence claims. The Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claims, ruling that the University was shielded by Eleventh Amendment immunity. It further found that the University Officials' actions, while possibly negligent, did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference required for a constitutional violation, dismissing these federal claims with prejudice. Finally, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law negligence claims, dismissing them without prejudice for resolution in state court.

Bonfire collapseTexas A&M University42 U.S.C. 1983Substantive Due ProcessState Created DangerEleventh Amendment ImmunityQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentFederal Law ClaimsState Law Claims

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Beer v. John Hancock Life Insurance

Plaintiff Yoram Beer sued various insurance companies to recover disability and life insurance benefits after suffering a heart attack, claiming total disability. Defendants denied the claims, leading to the plaintiff initiating litigation. The plaintiff later moved to dismiss the entire action with prejudice and without costs, while the defendants cross-moved for attorneys' fees, alleging the plaintiff's litigation was commenced in bad faith, and sought costs. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for dismissal with prejudice, reasoning that such a dismissal freed defendants from relitigation without causing them prejudice. It denied the defendants' request for attorneys' fees, finding insufficient evidence of bad faith or a meritless claim, but allowed them to seek allowable costs, excluding those related to a prior stipulated dismissal.

Voluntary DismissalDismissal with PrejudiceAttorneys' FeesCostsBad Faith LitigationRule 41(a)(2) MotionRule 54(d) CostsPrevailing PartyDisability Insurance BenefitsLife Insurance Policy

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pasternack v. Diamond

The court granted a motion to dismiss an appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself, with associated costs. However, this dismissal is conditional. If the appellant serves and files the required undertaking on appeal and pays $10 costs within 10 days from the order's date, the motion to dismiss will be denied, and the appeal will presumably proceed.

References

Showing 1-10 of 19,956 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Claim of Cell v. New York City Social Services Department

Cross AppealMotion to DismissSocial Services DepartmentConcurrenceAppellate Division

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Schlegel Manufacturing Corp.

Vacation Pay DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of RemediesBinding ArbitrationEmployment LawContractual ObligationAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalComplaint Dismissal

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. BB & BB Management Corp.

ForeseeabilityAssaultSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityNegligenceWorker's CompensationAppellate ReviewBroken LockCriminal ActivityNotice

References

Case No. 2020-03-0244

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 21, 2020

Johnson, Robert E. v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

References

Case No. 2020-03-0243

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 24, 2020

Watkins, Michael v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

occupational illnessworkers' compensationdismissalwithout prejudicetruck drivervocationalthird-party claimT.C.A.stipulatedcompensability

References

Case No. 2020-03-0245

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 21, 2020

Adkisson, Greg v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

Occupational IllnessHeavy EquipmentSettlement AgreementDismissalTelephonic MediationThird-Party ClaimFuture ClaimsWorkers' CompensationTennessee Law

References

Case No. G-01-CV-670

Regular Panel Decision

Kimmel Ex Rel. Estate of Kimmel v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

Bonfire collapseTexas A&M University42 U.S.C. 1983Substantive Due ProcessState Created DangerEleventh Amendment ImmunityQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentFederal Law ClaimsState Law Claims

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Beer v. John Hancock Life Insurance

Voluntary DismissalDismissal with PrejudiceAttorneys' FeesCostsBad Faith LitigationRule 41(a)(2) MotionRule 54(d) CostsPrevailing PartyDisability Insurance BenefitsLife Insurance Policy

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pasternack v. Diamond

References

Showing 1-10 of 19,956 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.