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. 2020 NY Slip Op 03157
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Burrell Orchards, Inc.

The case involves Paulette Jones, widow of Roy Jones, appealing a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Roy Jones suffered a work injury in 1996, resulting in permanent total disability, with benefits paid until his death in 2017. Paulette Jones filed a death benefits claim and sought an upward adjustment to the average weekly wage and reimbursement for home health care services provided to her late husband. The Board denied these requests, citing the doctrine of laches. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision regarding laches, finding the delay in asserting rights was explained by the decedent's lack of representation and conflicting wage evidence. The court concluded that the Board's application of laches was improper, modifying the decision and granting the motion to reopen the injury claim.

Workers' Compensation LawLaches DoctrineAverage Weekly Wage ModificationDeath BenefitsReopening ClaimPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewHome Health Care ReimbursementSpinal Cord InjuryEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Jones

This case addresses a motion by the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Defendant Jones. Jones was initially sued by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (H&H) for $2,370, representing a six-day hospital stay. Jones then sought indemnification from the Commissioner, asserting eligibility for Medicaid and that an H&H-submitted claim for benefits was not honored. The Commissioner sought dismissal on grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and constituted an impermissible collateral attack. The court denied the motion, finding it unclear that the city agency played no role in benefit administration, citing that the Statute of Limitations for indemnification runs from when the party is compelled to pay, and noting the lack of evidence that Jones received notice of a claim denial.

MedicaidIndemnificationThird-Party ActionMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSocial ServicesHospital BillingGovernment LiabilityHealthcare CostsCity Agency
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Shalala

Plaintiff Glenn Jones challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Jones, who sustained a back injury in 1988, had his application for benefits denied initially and on reconsideration, a decision upheld by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Appeals Council. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, focusing on the application of the treating physician rule and the determination of Jones's residual functional capacity for sedentary work. The court found that the ALJ properly considered contradictory medical evidence from consulting physicians and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Jones could perform sedentary work. Consequently, the court affirmed the Secretary's determination, denying Jones's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the defendant's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkBack InjuryMedical EvidenceALJ DecisionAffirmed DecisionFederal Court Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. County of Suffolk

The plaintiffs, Marie Jones (administrator of Roy A. Jones, III's estate) and Roy A. Jones, Jr. (decedent's father), brought a civil rights action against the County of Suffolk and Pedro Jones. They alleged that the County violated decedent's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by failing to protect him, despite prior involvement with the family, including the removal of decedent's sister. The County moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the federal claims, finding that New York's child welfare laws do not create a protected liberty interest in removal or protection, and no 'special relationship' was formed between the County and the decedent. The Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Civil RightsDue ProcessChild ProtectionMotion to DismissState ActionCustodySpecial RelationshipFourteenth AmendmentChild AbuseGovernmental Aid
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Publishers' Employees, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co.

Plaintiffs, the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, Inc. (IAPE) and ten Canadian employees, sued defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that Dow Jones violated its fiduciary obligations by changing the Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan's benefit allocation formula, which resulted in reduced benefits for Canadian employees due to currency conversion. Dow Jones argued it was not a fiduciary for this specific act or that the action was not a breach, asserting the right to amend plan contributions. The court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, found that Dow Jones's fiduciary duties under ERISA did not extend to the method of calculating employer contributions or modifying non-accrued benefits. The court concluded that both the Plan provisions and ERISA allowed prospective changes in contributions by the employer, and therefore, Dow Jones had not breached any fiduciary duty. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAFiduciary DutyProfit-Sharing PlanBenefit AllocationSummary JudgmentNon-Accrued BenefitsPlan AmendmentEmployer ContributionsCanadian EmployeesDistrict Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

Plaintiff Donna Jones sued her employer, Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK), alleging gender and age discrimination, a hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation under Title VII, ADEA, and the New York Human Rights Law. Jones detailed multiple incidents, including perceived humiliation, denied promotions, altered sales plans, and comments about "old deadwood" employees, culminating in her employment termination in 2003. She claimed these actions created an intolerable work environment and were retaliatory for her previous complaints of discrimination. The District Court granted GSK's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Jones failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a hostile work environment or demonstrate that any alleged adverse actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. The court also found many of her claims to be time-barred and denied her cross-motion to amend the complaint.

Hostile Work EnvironmentAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawTitle VIIADEANew York Human Rights Law
References
22
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01431 [180 AD3d 1313]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Servisair LLC

Edward Jones, the claimant, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that his right shoulder claim was time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. Jones sustained a work-related injury in February 2014, and although his employer filed a C-2F form, Jones did not file his C-3 form until June 2017, exceeding the two-year statutory limit. The Board concluded that the C-2F form, along with other initial documents, was insufficient to reasonably infer a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the determination that the claim was time-barred.

Time-barred claimWorkers' Compensation LawC-3 formC-2F formStatute of limitations defenseAppellate reviewShoulder injurySubstantial evidenceBoard decisionNotice of case assembly
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00854
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2022

Jones v. Adams

James Jones, a security guard at the New York Botanical Gardens, was injured when struck by a pickup truck operated by Toby Adams, an NYBG employee, and owned by Kaleidoscope Garden Design, LLC. Jones, who received Workers' Compensation benefits, subsequently sued Adams and Kaleidoscope for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions barred the action because Adams was a co-employee acting within the scope of employment. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the defendants demonstrated the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) exclusivity provisions, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Exclusivity ProvisionCo-Employee ImmunitySummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury ActionAutomobile AccidentAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionScope of EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySecurity Guard Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kimmco Energy Corp. v. Jones

Plaintiffs Kimmco Energy Corp., Peter, and Elbrun Kimmelman filed suit, individually and derivatively, against defendants William and Ruth Jones, alleging fraud in two investment partnerships. Plaintiffs claimed misrepresentations by William Jones regarding the partnerships' activities led them to overpay for properties and deplete capital. Federal claims were brought under RICO and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, along with nine pendent state claims. The RICO claims were subsequently dropped. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the alleged misrepresentations were not

Securities FraudRICORule 10b-5Motion to DismissPendent JurisdictionInvestment PartnershipsMisrepresentationCausationFraudulent InducementCivil Liability
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,542 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