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. ADJ4609174 (RDG 0041947)
Regular
Oct 27, 2010

DOYLE CANADA vs. REDDING POWER SAWMILL DIVISION, ESIS PORTLAND

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, Doyle Canada's petition for reconsideration was denied. The Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge, whose report detailed the reasons for the denial. This order, dated October 27, 2010, upholds the original decision and denies further review. The defendants were Redding Power Sawmill Division and ESIS Portland.

WCABPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgereport of the workers' compensation administrative law judgedeny reconsiderationADJ4609174Redding Power Sawmill DivisionESIS PortlandDoyle CanadaADJUDICATION
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Canada Life Assurance Co. v. Converium Rückerversicherung (Deutschland) AG

This case concerns a jurisdictional dispute between two foreign reinsurance companies, The Canada Life Assurance Company ("Canada Life") and Converium Rück-erversieherung (Deutschland) Ltd. ("Converium"), regarding reinsurance claims stemming from the September 11th terrorist attacks. Canada Life sued Converium for breach of retrocession agreements and failure to post a bond. Converium moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Air Transportation and System Stabilization Act's grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the Southern District of New York did not cover reinsurance disputes. The court, after examining the Act's language and legislative history, determined that Congress intended the jurisdiction for claims by individual victims, not for inter-reinsurer disputes. Accordingly, the court granted Converium's motion, dismissing Canada Life's complaint due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Subject Matter JurisdictionAir Transportation and System Stabilization ActSeptember 11th Terrorist AttacksReinsurance DisputeStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissFederal Cause of ActionJurisdictional ReachRetrocessionaireCollateral Source Obligations
References
20
Case No. 90-CV-4005
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1995

Acquaire v. Canada Dry Bottling

Plaintiffs, over 130 wholesale distributors of soft drink products, brought an action against approximately 40 defendants, including Canada Dry Bottling Company of New York and Coors Distributing Company of New York, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged violations of various federal acts (Sherman, Clayton, Robinson-Patman, Lanham, Taft-Hartley, RICO, ERISA) and state laws, stemming from alleged conspiracies to restrain trade, fraudulent inducement, tying arrangements, and price discrimination. Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in their distribution agreements, and plaintiffs moved to hold Canada Dry in contempt for withholding products. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, finding the claims arbitrable and rejecting plaintiffs' arguments of fraud, economic coercion, waiver, and expiration of the arbitration clause. The court also denied the contempt motion, ruling that the withholding of product for federal tax obligations was not prohibited by the prior injunction. All remaining claims and motions were stayed pending arbitration.

Antitrust LawArbitration AgreementContract EnforcementEconomic DuressFraudulent InducementWaiver of RightsDistribution FranchiseFederal LawInjunctive ReliefRacketeering
References
77
Case No. 2023-01678 / Index No. 605328/20
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2026

Barbu v. Doyle

In this personal injury action, Mark Barbu and his wife appealed from an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Connan Land Company, LLC, Kenneth Doyle, and Par 4 Property Management, LLC. The injured plaintiff, Mark Barbu, fell from a pallet rack in a warehouse while retrieving personal items and subsequently sued for common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. It ruled that the Labor Law protections did not apply as Barbu was not hired to perform work and was not acting as an employee at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the court found the owner was an out-of-possession landlord without liability for interior conditions, and the pallet rack constituted an open and obvious, non-inherently dangerous condition for which the other defendants had no duty to warn.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Premises LiabilityOut-of-Possession LandlordOpen and Obvious ConditionAppellate DivisionWarehouse AccidentFall from HeightEmployee Status
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1982

Crespi v. Ihrig

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied defendant Air Canada's motion for summary judgment in a case brought by plaintiff Jacqueline Crespi. Crespi sought damages for serious personal injuries sustained from an assault by a co-employee, Ihrig, at Air Canada's offices. The complaint alleged Air Canada's complicity, but no supporting evidence was found. Special Term's basis for denial, regarding bizarre symptoms, was deemed erroneous. The appellate court reversed, clarifying that employer liability under Workers' Compensation Law requires proof of an intentional act by the employer specifically directed at causing harm, not merely that injury was 'substantially certain.' Consequently, Air Canada's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint against it.

Assault by Co-employeeEmployer LiabilityWorkers’ Compensation LawSummary JudgmentIntentional ActPersonal InjuryAppellate CourtWorkplace IncidentDismissal of ComplaintNew York Supreme Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle v. Coombe

Earl Doyle, a former inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). He alleged that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated due to exposure to asbestos and a failure to provide necessary medical care during his incarceration from 1990 to 1992. Doyle claimed exposure occurred during his maintenance and plumbing duties, in asbestos abatement areas, and even within his cell. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of deliberate indifference and personal involvement. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, partly invoking qualified immunity for claims concerning general asbestos exposure that predated 1993. While the court noted that forcing an inmate into clearly marked dangerous areas might not be covered by qualified immunity, it ultimately dismissed all claims due to a lack of personal involvement by named defendants in those specific allegations and insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference against Jerome Fitzpatrick. Additionally, Doyle's cross-motions for further discovery and to amend the complaint to identify the "John Doe" defendants were denied due to untimeliness and legal precedent regarding the relation-back doctrine.

Asbestos exposureEighth AmendmentCruel and unusual punishmentPrison conditionsDeliberate indifferenceQualified immunitySummary judgmentPersonal involvementJohn Doe defendantsLeave to amend
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Canada v. National Mediation Board

Plaintiff Air Canada sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the National Mediation Board (NMB) from conducting a representation election among its passenger service employees, alleging several violations of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The court denied Air Canada's application, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to review most of the NMB's alleged errors and that Air Canada failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits for the one reviewable claim (failure to investigate). The court also found an insufficient showing of irreparable harm, noting that staying the election would cause greater damage than allowing it to proceed. The NMB's decisions on employee eligibility, cut-off dates, and craft/class determinations were generally upheld or deemed outside the court's review scope.

Temporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionNational Mediation BoardRailway Labor ActRepresentation ElectionJudicial Review LimitsIrreparable HarmCraft or Class DeterminationEmployee EligibilityElection Cut-off Date
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle v. United Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff Doreen Del Monaco Doyle sued United Airlines, Inc., alleging disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and breach of an employment agreement. Doyle claimed the airline denied her light duty work to accommodate short-term memory and coordination issues after brain surgery. Defendant moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, arguing the Rehabilitation Act claim was time-barred and the breach of contract claim was preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss both claims with prejudice. The Rehabilitation Act claim was found to be time-barred, and equitable tolling was denied due to lack of due diligence. The breach of contract claim was preempted by LMRA § 301 and, even if considered a hybrid LMRA § 301 claim, it was also time-barred, leading to its dismissal.

Disability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractLabor Management Relations ActLMRA PreemptionEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsHybrid § 301 ClaimDuty of Fair Representation
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2017

In re U.S. Steel Canada Inc.

U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), a Canadian subsidiary of U.S. Steel Corporation, initiated a Chapter 15 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on June 2, 2017. The primary objective was to obtain recognition of its Canadian CCAA proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and to enforce the Sanction Order and the associated reorganization plan approved by the Canadian Court. No objections were raised to the requested relief. Following a hearing on June 29, 2017, the Court granted all requests, recognizing the CCAA proceeding and enforcing the Sanction Order and Plan. The Court's decision was based on USSC meeting Chapter 15 eligibility requirements, including having property in the U.S., and confirmed that the CCAA proceeding was a foreign main proceeding with USSC's center of main interests (COMI) in Canada.

Chapter 15 BankruptcyForeign Main ProceedingCross-Border InsolvencyCCAA ProceedingSanction OrderReorganization PlanInternational ComityBankruptcy Code Section 109(a)Center of Main Interests (COMI)Debtor Eligibility
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 45 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