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. ADJ3851666 (AHM 0142294) ADJ6984864
Regular
Sep 03, 2010

EDWARD NEWMAN vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Edward Newman against Southern California Edison. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the accompanying report from the administrative law judge. Finding no grounds to disturb the WCJ's findings, the WCAB has issued an order denying removal. Therefore, the petition to remove the case from its current procedural stage has been rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJ reportdenying removalSouthern California EdisonPermissibly Self-InsuredADJ3851666ADJ6984864administrative law judgeRonnie G. Caplane
References
0
Case No. ADJ3851666 (AHM 0142294)
Regular
Sep 16, 2013

EDWARD NEWMAN vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved applicant Edward Newman and defendant Southern California Edison. The Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision, affirming it in part but amending the orders. Specifically, the liens of Lab-Eval Services and Stanley Majcher MD were disallowed, with jurisdiction reserved for costs and sanctions against them and Scott Marks. The matter was then returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationSouthern California EdisonEdward NewmanWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ's reportgrant reconsiderationamend decisiondisallowed liensLab-Eval ServicesStanley Majcher MD
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03327 [205 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Newman v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., Inc.

Plaintiff Aja Newman appealed two orders related to discovery in her lawsuit against Mount Sinai for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, stemming from sexual assaults committed by defendant Dr. David Newman on her and three other patients. The Supreme Court had denied Newman's motions to compel discovery regarding the identities of the other patients and hospital workers, and granted Mount Sinai's cross-motion for a protective order, citing quality assurance and HIPAA privileges. The Appellate Division reversed both orders, ruling that Mount Sinai failed to prove entitlement to the quality assurance privilege for all requested documents and that the doctor-patient privilege does not cover incidents of abuse. The court also clarified that HIPAA regulations allow for disclosure subject to a qualified protective order. The Appellate Division granted Newman's motions, directing Mount Sinai to disclose patient identities under a protective order, provide identities of Newman's coworkers, produce party statements from ordinary business records, and prepare a privilege log for quality assurance materials for in camera review, remanding the matter for further proceedings.

Discovery DisputeNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionQuality Assurance PrivilegeHIPAADoctor-Patient PrivilegeSexual AssaultPatient ConfidentialityProtective OrderPrivilege Log
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Leon v. Newman

The claimant was injured after falling from a scaffold while plastering a ceiling in an apartment owned by Steven Newman. He sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming an employer-employee relationship with Newman. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ decision finding such a relationship, despite Newman being uninsured. However, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship. The court found that the claimant was a skilled craftsperson who worked autonomously and was hired through an intermediary. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Employer-Employee RelationshipIndependent Contractor StatusScaffold Fall InjuryAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWitness PreclusionUninsured Employer LiabilityRemand OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Jet Blue Airways Corp.

Glenn Edwards initiated a putative class action against Jet Blue Airways Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law, article 19, § 650 et seq., concerning overtime compensation. Edwards claimed that Jet Blue failed to pay him at 1.5 times his regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 that were exchanged with coworkers. Jet Blue sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) § 213 (b) (3) for air carriers, which it argued was incorporated into New York's 12 NYCRR 142-2.2. The court acknowledged the applicability of the FLSA exemption to Edwards due to Jet Blue's status as an air carrier. However, the court ruled that 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 still mandates overtime pay at 1.5 times the basic minimum hourly rate for exempt employees, which in this context means their regular pay rate plus one half times the New York State minimum wage. Finding that Edwards' complaint sufficiently alleged inadequate overtime compensation under New York law based on this calculation, the court denied Jet Blue's motion to dismiss.

Class actionOvertime payLabor LawFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Minimum wageAir carrier exemptionWage and hour disputeMotion to dismissNew York employment law
References
18
Case No. 15-01392
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Music Mix Mobile LLC v. Newman (In re Stage Presence, Inc.)

This adversary proceeding involves claims by Music Mix Mobile, LLC and other plaintiffs against Stage Presence, Inc. and its owner, Allen Newman. Plaintiffs alleged they were not paid for services provided for a benefit concert and sought to hold Mr. Newman personally liable for Stage Presence's debts under alter ego or piercing the corporate veil theories. The court analyzed whether Mr. Newman excessively dominated Stage Presence and if this was used to perpetrate fraud or injustice. The decision concluded that Stage Presence maintained its separate corporate identity in key financial and operational aspects, and Mr. Newman genuinely believed the concert's funding was legitimate. Consequently, the court dismissed the alter ego claims against Mr. Newman while allowing the underlying claims against Stage Presence.

Bankruptcy LawAlter Ego DoctrinePiercing the Corporate VeilCorporate LiabilityCreditor ClaimsDebtor-Creditor LawFraudulent MisrepresentationContractual ObligationsCorporate FormalitiesUndercapitalization
References
33
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04174
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2021

Edwards v. State Univ. Constr. Fund

Stephen Edwards was injured during renovations at SUNY Oneonta when he allegedly hit his head on a wooden beam supporting a scaffold and fell down stairs. Edwards and his wife commenced an action against the State University Construction Fund (owner), Fahs Construction Group, Inc. (general contractor), and Tim Duffek Contracting, Inc. (subcontractor), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), common-law negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court denied motions to dismiss by SUCF and Fahs, partially granted Duffek's motion, awarded contractual indemnification to SUCF and Fahs from Ralo Construction, Inc. (Edwards's employer), and denied Ralo's motion to dismiss third-party complaints. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for SUCF and Fahs on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, citing triable issues of fact regarding a dangerous condition and notice. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Duffek. However, it reversed the premature award of contractual indemnification to SUCF and Fahs from Ralo due to unresolved questions of negligence, and granted Ralo's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims.

Construction accidentScaffold injuryDangerous conditionPremises liabilityContractual indemnificationBreach of contractSummary judgmentLabor Law § 200 claimLabor Law § 241(6) claimCommon-law negligence
References
38
Case No. 536034 CV-22-2074
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Newman v. Project Renewal, Inc.

The claimant, Hillary Newman, appealed two decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board concerning her established workers' compensation claim. Newman sustained injuries in May 2016 and subsequently had an intervening accident in September 2017. While she disclosed the intervening accident to her treating physician, this information was not available to an independent medical examiner (IME) when she completed a questionnaire on April 27, 2018, denying any subsequent injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board found Newman violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a for knowingly making a false statement and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the finding of a § 114-a violation, supported by substantial evidence. However, the court modified the duration of the mandatory penalty, ruling it should extend only until June 11, 2018, when the medical report detailing the intervening accident was filed and available to the carrier, rather than until April 9, 2021. The appeal from the earlier Board decision was dismissed as moot.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationIndependent Medical ExaminationMandatory PenaltyAppellate ReviewCredibility IssueMaterial FactIntervening AccidentMedical Report Disclosure
References
10
Case No. 05-CV-4424 (DRH)
Regular Panel Decision

NEWMAN AND CAHN, LLP. v. Sharp

This case involves a Notice of Removal filed by Linda Sharp, a non-party, seeking to transfer an action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to federal court. The original state court action was between Newman & Cahn, LLP, as plaintiff, and Michael Sharp, as defendant, concerning legal services. Linda Sharp, Michael Sharp's former spouse, alleged due process and federal statute violations as grounds for removal. The District Court denied Linda Sharp's Petition for Removal and granted Newman & Cahn, LLP's motion to remand the case back to state court, concluding that a non-party lacks standing for removal and alleged state court due process violations do not establish federal removal jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court denied the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and sanctions, noting pro se litigants are generally not entitled to such awards.

Federal JurisdictionRemoval of ActionRemandPro Se LitigantDue Process ViolationsNon-Party RemovalAttorneys' FeesRule 11 SanctionsSubject Matter JurisdictionStanding to Remove
References
29
Case No. 2014-1493 W CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2016

People v. Oliva (Edward)

Edward P. Oliva appealed convictions for driving while ability impaired and two counts of passing a red signal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeal concerning passing a red signal as abandoned due to lack of raised issues. The judgment convicting Oliva of driving while ability impaired was affirmed. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, noting that Oliva consumed alcohol, exhibited signs of impairment such as glassy eyes and slurred speech, fled an accident scene at high speed, and refused a breath test. Oliva's defense, attributing his condition to fatigue and shock, was deemed meritless by the court.

Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI)Vehicle and Traffic Law ViolationsAppellate Review of ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceRefusal to Submit to Chemical TestConsciousness of GuiltLesser-Included OffensePolice ChaseOperating a Motor Vehicle Under InfluenceTraffic Accident
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 280 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