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

Moore v. Eagle Sanitation, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kevin Moore and Roger Snyder filed a lawsuit against Eagle Sanitation Inc. and Michael Reali, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. They moved for conditional certification as an FLSA collective action, production of contact information for potential class members from April 2005 to April 2011, and court authorization to circulate a Notice of Pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson, granted the motion for conditional certification, finding that the plaintiffs met the lenient evidentiary standard required at this stage. Additionally, the court granted the request for defendants to produce contact information for a six-year period to account for state law claims, emphasizing judicial economy. The court also authorized the dissemination of the proposed notice, with minor modifications regarding the inclusion of defense counsel's contact details and clarification on potential costs and discovery obligations for opt-in plaintiffs.

FLSACollective ActionOvertime CompensationNew York Labor LawConditional CertificationNotice of PendencyStatute of LimitationsDiscovery of Class MembersWage and Hour DisputeEmployment Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murray Energy Corp. v. Reorg Research, Inc.

In this special proceeding, petitioner Murray Energy Corporation sought pre-action disclosure from Reorg Research, Inc. under CPLR 3102 (c) to identify confidential sources who provided information about Murray's financial strategies. Reorg argued that it was protected by New York’s Shield Law (Civil Rights Law § 79-h), claiming its editorial team acts as professional journalists disseminating news. The court, presided over by Carol R. Edmead, J., examined whether Reorg’s information, distributed to a limited group of high-end subscribers under strict confidentiality agreements, qualified as "news intended for dissemination to the public." The court concluded that Reorg does not meet this statutory requirement because its business model explicitly prevents public dissemination. Therefore, the Shield Law did not apply, and the court granted Murray’s application for pre-action disclosure, ordering Reorg to reveal the names and contact information of its sources.

Pre-action disclosureCPLR 3102New York Shield LawCivil Rights Law § 79-hJournalist's privilegeConfidential sourcesNews disseminationFinancial intelligencePrivate speechPublic concern
References
16
Case No. ADJ3200223 (STK 0189793) ADJ1312681 (STK 0189794)
Regular
Nov 05, 2012

ROSA HERNANDEZ vs. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, JT2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

Applicant Rosa Hernandez sought reconsideration of an amended workers' compensation award issued to correct a clerical error. The original award confirmed two industrial injuries with assigned permanent disability percentages. The applicant's petition was dismissed as "skeletal" because it lacked specific references to the record and legal principles, violating board regulations. Even if not dismissed for being skeletal, the petition would have been denied on its merits as the WCJ's decision relied on an unrefuted Agreed Medical Examiner's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationClerical ErrorIndustrial InjuryNeckThoracic SpinePsycheLow BackPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
Case No. ADJ8935299
Regular
Jan 03, 2014

DAVID LOW vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a FedEx driver who sustained injuries from a fall on the employer's premises during an unpaid lunch break. The Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the injury was industrial. The injury, resulting from an idiopathic coughing fit and subsequent fall on the employer's property, is compensable under the "personal comfort doctrine" and established case law regarding idiopathic falls on premises. The board affirmed that such injuries occurring on employer premises are compensable even if caused by non-work-related conditions.

AOE/COEunpaid lunch breakemployer's premisesidiopathic conditionpersonal comfort doctrineWCJPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationCounty of Contra Costa v. RamirezOrrala v. Harris Ranch
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03320 [239 AD3d 635]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2025

Montanino v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation

The plaintiff, Daniel Montanino, appealed an order that dismissed his defamation complaint against the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) and the City of New York. Montanino alleged that an anonymous DSNY employee posted a false statement on DSNY's internal network claiming he leaked civil service exam answers, and this statement was then disseminated throughout the department. The City defendants moved to dismiss, arguing immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and failure to meet CPLR 3016 (a) pleading requirements for defamation. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding the City defendants immune under the CDA as a provider of an interactive computer service and not the content provider, and that Montanino failed to specify details regarding the alleged subsequent dissemination of the defamatory statement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.

DefamationCommunications Decency ActCDA immunityInteractive computer serviceLibel and slanderPleading sufficiencyAnonymous postInternal communication networkCivil service examinationAppellate review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharma v. Burberry Ltd.

Plaintiffs Poonam Sharma, Brian Roach, Ronnel Jarin, and Nikita Simon brought an action against Burberry Limited for unpaid overtime under the FLSA and New York Labor Law, seeking conditional certification as a collective action. Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson ruled on several motions, including Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, Defendant's motion to strike, and various motions to supplement the record and compel discovery. The court partially granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, limiting the class to Sales Associates and Sales Leads in specific New York and New Jersey Burberry stores for defined periods. Defendant's motion to strike was denied, and other motions were granted in part and denied in part, setting parameters for notice dissemination and discovery while denying nationwide certification and certain dissemination methods.

Overtime CompensationFLSANew York Labor LawCollective ActionConditional CertificationSales AssociatesRetail EmploymentWage and Hour DisputeEmployment LitigationClass Action Notice
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Quigley v. Concern for Independent Living

Claimant sustained injuries to her left arm and wrist in an unwitnessed fall at work and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, and the full Board subsequently affirmed, prompting an appeal by the employer and its carrier. The employer contended the accident was due to an idiopathic condition, citing the claimant's use of a cane for balance and her inability to identify a work-related cause for the fall. However, the Board credited the claimant's testimony that she did not know the cause of her fall, deeming her statements about losing balance or footing as general descriptions rather than proof of a non-work-related incident. Given the absence of medical opinions linking the fall to idiopathic reasons, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the accident arose out of employment.

Workers' Compensation Law § 21Work-Related InjuryIdiopathic ConditionPresumption of CompensabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationUnwitnessed AccidentFall at WorkWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moran v. Walsh

Plaintiffs, members of Local 1-2, Utility Workers of America, including Moran and the Members' Voice group, moved for a preliminary injunction against the union's ruling slate (Walsh, Goodman, Geller, Burkhart) concerning union governance. The dispute involved the timing of union membership meetings, the consideration of proposed by-law amendments by Moran, and access to financial documents prior to a vote on expenditures. The defendants, who assumed office in September 1990, deviated from established 19-year practices regarding meeting schedules and notice, and initially refused full access to financial records. The court found that these actions constituted irreparable harm and raised sufficiently serious questions regarding violations of Local 1-2's by-laws and Section 101(a)(1) of the LMRDA (29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(1)). The court also determined that plaintiffs had "just cause" under 29 U.S.C. § 431(c) to examine and disseminate union financial records to members. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering defendants to hold the next meeting in April 1991 with proper notice, conduct a secret ballot vote on Moran's by-law proposal, and allow plaintiffs to review, copy, and disseminate specified union documents to the membership.

Union GovernanceBy-law AmendmentsMembership MeetingsFinancial DisclosureLMRDAPreliminary InjunctionVoting RightsUnion DemocracyLabor DisputeFreedom of Speech
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hetzler v. Record/Information Dissemination Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation

This case involves a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by pro se plaintiff Déirdre McKiernan Hetzler seeking records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concerning her father. The FBI released some documents, redacted others, and withheld some entirely, citing various FOIA exemptions including national security, internal agency rules, and protection of confidential sources and third-party privacy. Plaintiff challenged the breadth of these redactions. The Court conducted an in camera review of the withheld documents and, after evaluating the asserted exemptions, granted in part and denied in part both the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion, ordering the FBI to re-process and re-release certain documents where redactions were deemed unjustified.

FOIANational SecurityClassified InformationRedactionSummary JudgmentPrivacy InterestsConfidential SourcesFBIGovernment RecordsDeclassified Documents
References
30
Case No. ADJ4327602
Regular
Aug 29, 2008

RACHEL MITCHELL vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The WCJ found that no further attorney’s fees were warranted and ordered defendant to release $498.30 to applicant. Petitioner’s reconsideration petition is denied due to lack of verification, skeletal nature, and failure to serve defendant’s counsel.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order Releasing FundsAttorney's FeesStipulated AwardIndustrial InjuryRespiratory Care PractitionerPermanent DisabilityConsultative RatingAgreed Medical Examiner
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 179 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