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. ADJ7109517
Regular
May 05, 2011

DWAYNE RUDD vs. OAKLAND RAIDERS AND ACE/USA, Administered by ESIS, TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by NOVA PRO RISK SOLUTIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a prior decision and found applicant Dwayne Rudd's claim barred by the statute of limitations. Despite the WCJ finding defendants estopped to assert the defense due to notice violations, the Board determined Rudd possessed actual knowledge of his workers' compensation rights. This knowledge was evidenced by his signing of a DWC-1 form and retaining multiple law firms to pursue prior, dismissed claims for the same cumulative trauma injury. Therefore, the Board concluded there was no prejudice from the lack of notice, and the claim was untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDwayne RuddOakland RaidersACE/USATampa Bay BuccaneersNova Pro Risk Solutionsindustrial cumulative traumaprofessional football playerstatute of limitationsestoppel
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kretowski v. Braender Condominium

Stanislaw Kretowski, a construction helper, was injured when a brick fell during hoisting at a building owned by Braender Condominium and managed by Rudd Realty Management Corp. He commenced an action against Braender, Rudd, and Brend Renovation Corporation, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240, 241, and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The court found that plaintiff established a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240(1) against the defendants. For Labor Law § 241(6), an issue of fact was raised regarding 12 NYCRR 23-6.1(d), but not for 12 NYCRR 23-6.3(a), leading to a partial denial and partial grant of Brend's summary judgment motion. Braender and Rudd were granted summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 claim, and their cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Brend was properly granted.

Construction accidentLabor LawSummary judgmentHoisting equipmentFalling objectPrima facie caseContractual indemnificationProperty owner liabilityManagement company liabilityContractor liability
References
18
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05047
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2024

Cooper v. Bldg 7th St. LLC

This case involves an appeal regarding summary judgment motions on indemnification and breach of contract claims between defendants/third-party plaintiffs BLDG 7th Street, LLC et al. and third-party defendant Global Pest Control, LLC. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying summary judgment to Global on BLDG's contractual indemnification claim, citing an unclear and ambiguous indemnification agreement. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of BLDG's common-law indemnification and contribution claims against Global because plaintiff Dwayne Cooper was not alleged to have sustained a grave injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The dismissal of BLDG's breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance was also affirmed, as Global provided proof of its policy meeting contractual requirements. Consequently, issues of fact remain concerning the scope of the parties' indemnification agreement.

Contractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceThird-Party ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryAmbiguity in ContractAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Dwayne G.

The Commissioner of Social Services initiated a neglect proceeding against a respondent mother, alleging chronic alcoholism and resultant child neglect. The petitioner sought court orders to compel Long Island College Hospital to produce the mother's alcohol abuse records and to allow the subpoena of an alcohol services counselor. The court granted the motion for record production, citing good cause under Federal law and prioritizing the child's best interests over confidentiality. However, the motion to subpoena the counselor was denied. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the counselor's testimony was "necessary and material" to the neglect determination, differentiating this case from prior rulings where such necessity was established.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseConfidentialityMedical Records DisclosureSubpoenaFamily Court ActBest Interests of the ChildPrivileged CommunicationsGood CauseBalancing Test
References
4
Case No. SAC 0282406
Regular
May 09, 2008

DWAYNE BAHNSEN vs. FCI CONSTRUCTORS, INC., ARGONAUT INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the judge's order quashing a subpoena for personnel records was an interlocutory order, not a final determination of rights or liability. Furthermore, the Board denied the defendant's request for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would justify this extraordinary remedy. The Board agreed that the subpoena for confidential employment records was not a reasonable discovery request and that the defendant failed to demonstrate a compelling need or inability to obtain the information through less intrusive means.

Subpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashReconsiderationRemovalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityPrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
9
Case No. ADJ8083206
Regular
Jan 04, 2012

Dwayne McClendon vs. City Wide Electronic Systems, Berkshire Hathaway

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated here. The Board found that the WCJ's report adequately addressed the defendant's arguments. Specifically, the Board inferred that the applicant's attorney had filed an application in 2008, and the lack of a case number was due to a clerical error, not a lack of jurisdiction.

Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportJurisdictional ArgumentApplication FilingCase NumberClerical Error
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Carter

This case involves a dispute over the creation, ownership, and use of the Roc-a-Fella Records logo. Plaintiff Dwayne Walker asserts he designed the logo and entered a contract with Damon Dash for royalties, but claims the contract was subsequently lost. He also filed copyright infringement claims against Shawn Carter, Damon Dash, Kareem Burke, UMG Recordings, Island Def Jam Music Group, and Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the contract claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds and the copyright claim is time-barred. The court granted defendants' motion, finding insufficient evidence of a written contract and that the copyright ownership claim accrued and was time-barred in 2007.

Logo DisputeBreach of ContractCopyright InfringementStatute of FraudsSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsCopyright OwnershipIntellectual PropertyRoc-A-Fella RecordsRecord Label
References
59
Case No. 2015-2609 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Gl Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by GL Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee of Dwayne O. Ferguson, against Allstate Insurance Company regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, had initially denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint due to alleged excessive charges. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, found that Allstate Insurance Company failed to demonstrate timely mailing of denial of claim forms, thus precluding their defense. However, GL Acupuncture, P.C. also failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment. Therefore, the Appellate Term modified the order by denying the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, while affirming the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentDenial of claimTimely mailingStandard office practiceInsurance defenseAppellate reviewPrima facie caseExcess workers' compensation fee scheduleAssignee claims
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pineda v. 79 Barrow Street Owners Corp.

The plaintiff, an employee of Woo Management, sustained injuries after falling from a collapsing ladder while painting a cooperative apartment. The apartment was owned by 79 Barrow Street Owners Corporation and managed by Eichner Rudd Management Associates Limited (collectively, the defendants). The plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants initiated a third-party action against Woo for indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendants and the third-party complaint against Woo, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. This appellate court modified the Supreme Court's decision, finding the plaintiff entitled to summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against the defendants, but affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims and common-law negligence. The court also affirmed the dismissal of common-law indemnification and contribution claims against Woo but granted leave to amend the third-party complaint to assert contractual indemnification.

Labor LawWorkers' Compensation LawPremises LiabilityLadder CollapseSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContributionCooperative ApartmentAppellate ReviewOwner Liability
References
9
Showing 1-9 of 9 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