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. ADJ9737947
Regular
Apr 15, 2016

DOUGLAS CRINGEAN vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIO FACILITIES, WARNER BROS. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, involving Douglas Cringean and Warner Bros. Studio Facilities, concerns a clerical error in a prior decision's caption. The Board's decision served on April 11, 2016, incorrectly stated the caption as "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration." The Board is correcting this to the accurate caption, "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration." This correction is permissible as clerical errors can be rectified at any time without further proceedings.

Clerical ErrorCaption CorrectionPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAMENDED captionSupplemental ProceedingsADJ9737947Warner Bros. Studio FacilitiesDouglas Cringean
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03262 [149 AD3d 654]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

Stein v. Douglas Elliman, LLC

This case involves a claim of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention following the murder of Linda Stein by her assistant, Natavia Lowery. Lowery was an employee of Axion, a temp agency, and was placed as an assistant to Stein, an independent contractor for Douglas Elliman, LLC (DE-LLC). The court found that Axion was not liable for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention because it had no prior notice of Lowery's violent propensities. Additionally, Douglas Elliman, LLC's motion for summary judgment was granted as Lowery was not considered a special employee of DE-LLC, and DE-LLC did not exercise supervision or control over her work.

Negligent HiringNegligent SupervisionNegligent RetentionSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeVicarious LiabilityAssaultMurderTemp AgencyIndependent Contractor
References
3
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01340 [225 AD3d 467]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

Douglas v. Roseland Dev. Assoc., LLC

In Douglas v Roseland Dev. Assoc., LLC, Alfred Douglas sued Roseland Development Associates, LLC, et al., leading to third-party claims against DFC Structures LLC and DiFama Concrete, Inc. The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed an order denying summary judgment to DFC and DiFama on third-party claims. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for breach of contract (failure to procure insurance) against both DFC and DiFama. However, it modified the order by granting summary judgment to DiFama regarding common-law indemnification and contribution claims, as these were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 because DiFama was the plaintiff's employer and there was no grave injury. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for DFC on common-law indemnification and contribution, citing unresolved factual issues regarding DFC's potential negligence.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryAlter EgoAppellate DivisionThird-Party Claims
References
3
Case No. 533217
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Douglas Kromer

Claimant Douglas A. Kromer appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm, stemming from a shoulder injury. The Board had credited orthopedic surgeon Gerald Coniglio's opinion of a 20% SLU, offsetting it with prior SLU awards for the claimant's left elbow, effectively ruling no further award was due. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the Board failed to properly consider whether the current shoulder injury resulted in an increased loss of use beyond prior injuries, as clarified by Matter of Johnson v City of New York. Additionally, the court found the Board's decision lacked a rational basis for departing from its precedent regarding the inclusion of posterior extension deficits in SLU calculations, remitting the matter for further consideration.

Schedule Loss of UseShoulder InjuryWorkers' Compensation AppealMedical Impairment GuidelinesPrior Injury CreditOrthopedic Surgery OpinionBoard Decision ReversalRemittiturMedical Expert TestimonyRotator Cuff Tear
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarno v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Sarno sued his employer, Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives (DEGI), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Sarno claimed DEGI refused to accommodate his alleged disability, terminated his employment, and retaliated against him, in addition to failing to notify him of FMLA rights. Sarno suffered a hernia and a sprained rectus muscle, leading to a leave of absence. DEGI terminated his employment after twelve weeks of unpaid leave. The court granted DEGI's motion for summary judgment and denied Sarno's. The court found Sarno failed to prove he was disabled under the ADA as his impairments were not substantially limiting or permanent. Furthermore, even if DEGI failed to provide adequate FMLA notice, Sarno received the full benefits of the leave and thus was not harmed, precluding FMLA violation claims.

ADAFMLAEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTerminationReasonable AccommodationSprained MuscleHerniaPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03344 [205 AD3d 570]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

Douglas v. Tishman Constr. Corp.

Jaydee Douglas, a lather for Navillus Contracting, was injured on a construction project in Bronx County when struck by a wooden door form. He sought summary judgment against Tishman Construction Corporation and BOP NE LLC based on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted his motion for both claims but also granted defendants' cross-motion to amend their answers and dismiss claims of traumatic brain injury due to collateral estoppel. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order by denying summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding the expert affidavit asserting new grounds was improperly introduced in reply, but otherwise affirmed the decision, including the application of collateral estoppel.

Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawCollateral EstoppelTraumatic Brain InjuryVicarious LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityConstruction Manager LiabilityWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Khan v. Douglas MacHine & Tool Co., Inc.

Subhan Khan sued Douglas Machine & Tool Company, Inc. and TurboCombustor Technology, Inc. for failure to pay sums due under a debenture. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Khan violated a Subordination Agreement by attempting to collect on a junior debt without the senior creditor's consent. Khan cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting the Subordination Agreement was invalidly assigned or that the senior debt had been paid. The court found the Subordination Agreement validly assigned and in force, and that Khan failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence that the senior debt was extinguished. Consequently, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Khan's action, while denying Khan's cross-motion.

Summary JudgmentDebentureSubordination AgreementContract LawAssignment of ContractCorporate Veil PiercingOhio LawNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynn v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

This case concerns a negligence action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff John Lynn in an airplane elevator accident during his employment with Pan Am. After receiving workers' compensation, Lynn and other plaintiffs sued Pan Am (as successor to National Airlines) and McDonnell Douglas Corp. A jury apportioned fault primarily to Pan Am. Pan Am appealed the denial of its motion to vacate and the interlocutory judgment. Plaintiffs cross-appealed against McDonnell Douglas. The appellate court dismissed both the appeal from the order and the cross-appeal. It modified the interlocutory judgment, affirming in part, but ordered a new trial for plaintiffs' claims against Pan Am due to errors in the jury charge regarding successor liability and the consideration of post-merger negligence.

Negligence ActionPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ProcedureJury Instruction ErrorSuccessor Corporation LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityInterlocutory Judgment AppealNew Trial GrantedCross-Appeal DismissalCorporate Merger Liabilities
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1993

New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union

The New York City Transit Authority appealed a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed a Tripartite Arbitration Board's decision. The Board had modified the dismissal sanction for employee Samuel Douglas, who was found guilty of sexual harassment, to a suspension without pay. The Transit Authority argued this modification violated public policy by undermining its efforts to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aims to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. However, the appellate court balanced the strong public policy against sexual harassment with the necessity of exercising due restraint in vacating arbitration awards. The court found that the arbitration award was not irrational and that public policy considerations did not prohibit the imposition of a suspension in lieu of a dismissal, especially given Douglas's lack of prior similar misconduct. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed, with costs.

Sexual HarassmentArbitration AwardPublic PolicyEmployer LiabilityEmployee DisciplineSuspensionDismissalCPLR Article 75Title VIIAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ballard v. CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Plaintiff Pamela Ballard sued The Children’s Aid Society (CAS), Jacqueline Francis, and Stephen Douglas, alleging retaliation under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Ballard claimed various retaliatory actions by defendants, including salary issues, office assignments, performance evaluations, job reclassification, and ultimate termination, following her complaints to the NYSDHR. The court evaluated the claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for Title VII and NYSHRL, and a more liberal standard for NYCHRL. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for their actions, which Ballard failed to sufficiently refute with admissible evidence. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all of Ballard's retaliation claims, including those against the individual defendants, due to lack of a causal link or insufficient evidence of pretext.

Retaliation ClaimTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)Summary JudgmentEmployment LawBurden-Shifting FrameworkPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionCausal Connection
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 140 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