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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Edith S. v. Victor C.

This case addresses a respondent's challenge to a paternity hearing, specifically an objection regarding a Support Magistrate's authority to determine estoppel issues. The court found the respondent's procedural objection unavailing, noting that the Support Magistrate correctly referred the equitable estoppel matter to a Family Court Judge as per Family Ct Act § 439 (b). Evidence presented established a familial relationship between the 13-year-old child and the respondent, with the child considering him her father and a social worker testifying about the emotional harm genetic testing would cause. Consequently, the Family Court properly concluded that the respondent is estopped from denying paternity based on the child's best interests.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActSupport MagistrateGenetic TestingFamilial RelationshipPanel DecisionJudicial ReferralChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chatelain v. Mount Sinai Hospital

Plaintiff, discharged from Mount Sinai Hospital for misconduct, was denied unemployment benefits by the New York State Department of Labor. Though the administrative decision was upheld on appeal, plaintiff did not pursue state court review but instead filed a federal action alleging wrongful discharge and breach of duty of fair representation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting collateral estoppel based on the administrative ruling. The District Court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the collateral estoppel defense, holding that administrative agency decisions not reviewed by a state court, especially those from potentially unfair hearings, should not be given preclusive effect in federal court actions under the Labor Management Relations Act.

Wrongful DischargeCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataUnemployment BenefitsAdministrative LawFederal Court JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActDue ProcessSummary JudgmentGrievance Procedures
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene County Department of Social Services v. Ward

This is a concurring opinion by Chief Judge Kaye regarding a case involving Ms. Ward and the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). Ms. Ward, facing challenges with her son Jeffrey's severe behavioral issues and a lack of support services, was coerced into permanently relinquishing her parental rights to GCDSS after they refused a temporary relinquishment and failed to provide adequate assistance. She subsequently challenged a child support order, citing statutory exceptions and equitable estoppel due to GCDSS's alleged failures in providing information on parental support obligations and mandatory preventive services. While the court affirmed the original support order, Chief Judge Kaye's opinion highlights the GCDSS's apparent non-compliance with regulatory mandates, including the failure to inform parents of support obligations, conduct a 'best interests' analysis, and refer to essential preventive and emergency mental health services, stressing that such a situation should not recur. However, the requested remedy of estoppel against the agency could not be granted.

Parental RightsChild SupportSocial Services AgencyEquitable EstoppelRegulatory CompliancePreventive ServicesChild WelfareGreene CountyConcurring OpinionFamily Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1980

Hilowitz v. Hilowitz

In a negligence action for personal injuries, the plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 22, 1980. The order, issued by Justice Hyman, had denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defense of collateral estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that an arbitration award, even without judicial confirmation, can serve as a basis for res judicata and collateral estoppel if there was a final determination on the merits. The court referenced Kilduff v Donna Oil Corp. and distinguished Hana Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v Sheet Metal Workers Int. Assn. All other contentions raised by the plaintiff were deemed to be without merit.

NegligencePersonal InjuryAppealCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataArbitration AwardJudicial ConfirmationFinal DeterminationAppellate DecisionSupreme Court Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Holder

Plaintiff David Rivera, a correctional officer, initiated a Title VII retaliation lawsuit against Defendant Eric H. Holder, Jr., alleging adverse actions after he assisted a co-worker with an EEOC complaint. Rivera's claims included an unfair performance review and unjustified Absent Without Leave (AWOL) status. Crucially, after filing his own EEOC complaint, Rivera subsequently filed for bankruptcy but failed to disclose this pending administrative proceeding in his bankruptcy petition. The Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing judicial estoppel. The Court found Rivera's omission was not inadvertent, as he had knowledge of the claim and a motive to conceal it from creditors. Consequently, the Court granted the Defendant's motion, dismissing Rivera's complaint with prejudice based on judicial estoppel.

Judicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentBankruptcyEEOC ClaimTitle VIIRetaliationFederal Bureau of PrisonsUndisclosed AssetsPrior Inconsistent PositionFifth Circuit
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2001

Lozada v. GBE Contracting Corp.

Klever Lozada, a plaintiff, was injured after falling from a truck while painting a highway bridge. He and other plaintiffs initially brought an action against the State of New York and GBE Contracting Corp., the general contractor. A prior ruling in the Court of Claims, which initially granted Lozada an interlocutory judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), was reversed on appeal, concluding that Lozada was a recalcitrant worker and his own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Subsequently, GBE Contracting Corp. moved for summary judgment in the Supreme Court action, citing collateral estoppel based on the appellate reversal. The Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the issue of Lozada's sole proximate cause had been previously decided, thus precluding relitigation.

Collateral EstoppelRecalcitrant WorkerSummary JudgmentLabor LawPersonal InjuryAppealsProximate CauseDamagesQueens CountySupreme Court
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mangum v. National Union Fire Insurance

A claimant was injured in July 2000 and filed for workers' compensation after her disability claim was denied. The Workers' Compensation Board initially indexed the claim against Career Horizons, Inc., with AIG Claims Services, Inc. as its administrator. AIG failed to appear at multiple hearings, leading to the claim's establishment and penalties. After an initial appeal by AIG, the Board affirmed the establishment but remitted the case to identify the proper carrier. CNA Insurance Company was subsequently identified as the employer's true workers' compensation carrier. The WCLJ and the Board ruled that AIG was estopped by laches from denying coverage. This court, however, reversed the Board's finding of estoppel, concluding that the Board abused its discretion by not addressing evidence suggesting CNA had timely notice of the claim and basing its decision on incorrect employer/carrier identification. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEstoppelLachesInsurance CoverageCarrier LiabilityThird-Party AdministratorAppellate ReviewRemittalProcedural Due ProcessTimely Notice
References
9
Case No. 04-20-00051-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2021

Medfinmanager, LLC v. John Salas

John Salas was injured on the job and sued the employer of another driver. While his case was pending, MedFinManager, LLC (MedFin) paid medical providers for Salas's spinal fusion surgery. After Salas settled, MedFin sued him for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel to recover its medical payments from the settlement proceeds. The trial court dismissed MedFin's breach of contract and quantum meruit claims, but awarded MedFin $69,393.10 on its promissory estoppel claim, denying all other relief and litigation costs. On appeal, MedFin challenged the dismissal of its contract and quantum meruit claims and the denial of attorney's fees for the promissory estoppel claim, while Salas cross-appealed the denial of litigation costs. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on MedFin's breach of contract and quantum meruit claims, and Salas's litigation costs, but reversed and remanded for a determination of MedFin’s attorney’s fees related to its promissory estoppel claim.

Contract LawQuantum MeruitPromissory EstoppelAttorney's FeesLitigation CostsSettlement OffersTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ProcedureMedical Liens
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rigopolous v. American Museum of Natural History

The case examines the application of collateral estoppel stemming from a workers’ compensation proceeding. The court found that collateral estoppel correctly barred the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, affirming the lower court's dismissal of that specific cause of action. However, the Supreme Court erred in applying collateral estoppel to the plaintiff’s claims of negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), as the prior workers' compensation determination was too narrow. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order to reinstate the negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) causes of action, citing the defendant's failure to eliminate all triable issues of fact.

Collateral EstoppelWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLabor Law §240Labor Law §200Labor Law §241NegligenceIssue PreclusionAppellate ReviewJudicial Error
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Superior Laminate & Supply, Inc. v. Formica Corp.

Superior Laminate & Supply, Inc. sued Formica Corporation for breach of contract, fraud, and promissory estoppel after Formica terminated their distributorship agreement. Superior claimed Formica promised a non-terminable relationship, inducing significant investment. The jury found Formica committed fraud but also found Superior should have discovered it earlier, barring the claim by the statute of limitations. The trial court also disregarded jury findings on promissory estoppel due to existing valid agreements. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's take-nothing judgment against Superior, upholding the statute of limitations defense and the principle that promissory estoppel cannot replace an enforceable contract.

Contract DisputeFraud ClaimPromissory EstoppelStatute of LimitationsDistributorship AgreementBreach of ContractAffirmative DefenseNovationMerger DoctrineAppellate Review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 595 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