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. 08-cv-3546 (ADS)(WDW)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2011

Smith v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD DEPT. OF SANITATION

This civil rights case was brought by three African-American employees, Leo Smith, Jr., Benjamin Cannon, Jr., and John Christopher Smith, against the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation Sanitary District No. 2 and several individual defendants. Plaintiffs alleged a hostile work environment based on a noose incident and subsequent retaliation for filing EEOC complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims against the Sanitary District, Robert Noble, Michael McDermott, and Nicholas Dionisio, citing triable issues of fact regarding the severity of the environment and the adequacy of the employer's remedial actions. However, summary judgment was granted for defendant John Beyer and the Board of Commissioners on these claims. Retaliation claims by John Smith and Benjamin Cannon were dismissed, but Leo Smith's retaliation claim against Michael McDermott and the Sanitary District was allowed to proceed. All claims of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 were dismissed due to lack of evidence of agreement and the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentCivil RightsTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983New York State Human Rights LawIntracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Colvin

Lisa Smith filed an action under the Social Security Act to review the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her disability insurance benefits. The plaintiff alleged disability due to depression, anxiety, and PTSD. After an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied her application, and the Appeals Council upheld the decision, the plaintiff sought judicial review. The court found that the ALJ failed to properly assess the opinions of treating and consultative medical sources, specifically overlooking evidence from Dr. Andrew Wurl and inadequately explaining the weight given to various medical opinions. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, the Commissioner's motion is denied, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeJudicial ReviewMental ImpairmentsResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleConsultative ExaminationAppeals CouncilPleadings Motion
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Positive Productions

Jonathan Smith, known as Lil Jon, petitioned the District Court to vacate or modify an arbitration award in favor of Positive Productions, a Japanese concert promoter. The dispute arose from Smith's failure to perform three concerts in Japan as per initial and rescheduled agreements, leading to their cancellation. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution arbitrator, Mark Diamond, awarded Positive Productions $379,874.00 for lost profits, expenses, legal fees, and loss of reputation. Smith argued improper notice of arbitration, lack of arbitrator jurisdiction, and manifest disregard of New York law regarding damages. The District Court, presided by Judge Mukasey, denied Smith's petition and granted Positive Productions' cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that Smith received sufficient notice, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, and the damage awards were justified under the law.

Arbitration AwardContract BreachLost ProfitsExpensesReputation DamagesAttorneys' FeesNoticeJurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
54
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01414 [180 AD3d 1270]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2020

Smith v. State of New York

Rahssan Smith, a bridge painter, died after a platform he was working on collapsed into the Champlain Canal. His spouse, Resheemah Smith, as administrator of his estate, sued the State of New York alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Court of Claims partially granted claimant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The State appealed, arguing decedent's failure to use safety devices was the sole proximate cause. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the platform's failure was the precipitating event and decedent's omissions amounted to comparative negligence, not the sole proximate cause under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)Absolute LiabilityElevation-Related HazardScaffolding CollapseProximate CauseComparative NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBridge PainterWorkplace Accident
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03584
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2018

Matter of Smith v. Park

Alex K. Smith, a 14-year-old, died in a skid steer accident at Park Family Farm. His mother, Vicky S.T. Smith, as administrator, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, finding the decedent an illegally employed minor. The claimant challenged this, arguing the employer was uninsured. The Workers' Compensation Board confirmed coverage by the State Insurance Fund and increased the death benefit award to $100,000 under double indemnity provisions, with Park Family Farm solely responsible for the increased amount due to illegal employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that a change in partnership composition did not invalidate the insurance policy.

Illegal EmploymentMinor Employee DeathWorkers' Compensation Death BenefitsInsurance Policy ValidityPartnership ChangeEmployer LiabilityDouble IndemnityAppellate ReviewFarm AccidentSkid Steer Accident
References
10
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04775
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Smith v. Girls Club of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of plaintiff Mark A. Smith's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Girls Club of New York. Smith was injured while voluntarily participating in a community service program. The court found that Smith failed to establish he was an "employee" entitled to the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1), a prerequisite for his claim. His reliance on the Workers' Compensation Law was deemed unavailing, and new evidence submitted did not alter the determination. The court concluded that Smith was not employed by an agent of the defendant.

Labor Law § 240(1)Community Service ProgramEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewVoluntary ParticipationPersonal InjuryScope of EmploymentJudiciary Law
References
4
Case No. 527925
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Smith v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transp. Auth.

Claimant George I. Smith appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from November 15, 2017. The Board ruled that Smith's lower back injury was not a consequential causally-related injury to his initial work-related right foot and consequential left knee injuries from February 2012. Additionally, the Board found that Smith violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose his complete medical history regarding a prior lower back injury from a 2000 motor vehicle accident. The WCLJ and subsequently the Board denied Smith's request to amend his claim for the lower back injury and imposed penalties, rescinding and disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported both the lack of causal relationship for the back injury and the § 114-a violation due to Smith's false representations and omissions.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent MisrepresentationCausally Related InjuryLower Back InjuryIndependent Medical ExaminationPrior Medical HistoryIndemnity BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falik v. Smith

Plaintiff Harold Falik sued defendants David T. Smith and James Moscowitz for breach of an indemnification agreement. The agreement concerned legal expenses Falik incurred in a prior lawsuit, Myron Karr v. Emerson Radio. Defendants sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, or a transfer of the case. The court found it lacked personal jurisdiction over Smith in New York, as his contacts did not satisfy CPLR 301 or 302(a)(1) requirements. However, enforcing a forum selection clause and considering Smith's business contacts in New Jersey, the court deemed New Jersey a more appropriate forum. The court ordered the case transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey.

Personal JurisdictionForum Selection ClauseIndemnification AgreementTransfer of VenueDiversity ActionNew York Civil Practice LawMinimum ContactsDoing BusinessLong-Arm StatuteGeneral Jurisdiction
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Neurological Assocs., P.C. v. Highmark Blue Shield & Reed Smith LLP

Plaintiff Long Island Neurological Associates, P.C. sued Highmark Blue Shield and Reed Smith LLP for under-reimbursement of surgical services under ERISA. The case involved a 4-year-old patient who received complex out-of-network surgery from Dr. Schneider due to the unavailability of in-network providers. Highmark significantly under-reimbursed the billed amount and denied multiple appeals, failing to provide requested documentation. The patient's parents assigned their rights to the Plaintiff, leading Defendants to move for dismissal, asserting an anti-assignment provision in their Administrative Service Agreement (ASA). The Court denied the motion, ruling that the ASA is not an ERISA plan document and thus its anti-assignment clause is not binding on plan participants, confirming Plaintiff's standing. The Rule 12(b)(6) motion was also denied as abandoned.

ERISAMotion to DismissAnti-assignment clauseAdministrative Service Agreement (ASA)Plan DocumentSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingUnder-reimbursementOut-of-network providerHealth Insurance
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith Barney Shearson Inc. v. Sacharow

This opinion addresses two consolidated cases, Smith Barney, Inc. v. Sacharow and Smith Barney, Inc. v. Hause, concerning the arbitrability of securities transaction disputes under the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure. Smith Barney sought to stay arbitrations initiated by customers Sacharow and Hause, arguing that claims over six years old were ineligible per NASD Code § 15 and that courts, not arbitrators, should decide this eligibility. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision to compel arbitration, holding that while § 15 is a substantive eligibility requirement, the broad language of the arbitration agreements and the incorporation of NASD Code § 35 indicated a 'clear and unmistakable' intent by the parties to arbitrate issues of arbitrability. Furthermore, the court clarified that a general New York choice of law provision in the customer agreements does not override this intent or limit the arbitrators' authority. The decision reinforces a strong public policy favoring comprehensive arbitration and protects consumers from investment houses attempting to evade their own broad arbitration agreements.

Arbitration AgreementSecurities TransactionsArbitrabilityNASD Code Section 15Time BarChoice of LawFederal Arbitration ActCustomer AgreementsInvestment DisputesBrokerage Accounts
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 1,650 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