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. ADJ6883903
Regular
Oct 12, 2012

NADIA KAKAR vs. EDWARD THOMPSON, DDS, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has dismissed Nadia Kakar's Petition for Reconsideration in her case against Edward Thompson, DDS, and Preferred Employers Insurance Company. The Board adopted and incorporated the findings of the administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation, which recommended dismissal. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration is formally dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationADJ6883903Edward Thompson DDSPreferred Employers Insurance CompanyNadia KakarStockwell Harris
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Thompson v. Hayduscko

Claimant Gloria Thompson, a licensed home health aide, was initially employed by M.E.A. Healthcare Services. She was later privately hired by Clare Hayduscko to provide nursing services to Eleanor Adamec, working over 40 hours per week and paid with Adamec's funds. In June 2007, Thompson injured her right ankle while caring for Adamec and filed a workers' compensation claim against Hayduscko, who she named as her employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) twice determined that Thompson was an independent contractor, disallowing the claim. However, the full Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding Thompson to be a domestic worker engaged in covered employment and Hayduscko to be her employer, establishing the claim for accidental injury. Hayduscko appealed this Board decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's determination of an employer-employee relationship is not a final, appealable order as it does not resolve all substantive issues in the claim and thus does not present a threshold legal issue for review prior to the Board's final determination.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployer-Employee DisputeIndependent Contractor StatusDomestic Worker DefinitionJurisdictionAppeal DismissalNon-Final DecisionAppellate Review LimitationsWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionHome Healthcare Services
References
12
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Bosswick

Michael Thompson, a former estate manager for the Riverside Trust, sued its trustees Mark Bosswick and Sanford E. Ehrenkranz, and manager Peter Lambert. Thompson alleged defamation, tortious interference with prospective business and contractual relations, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract related to a confidentiality agreement, breach of contract for severance pay, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with employment relations. He claimed Lambert defamed him by spreading false information about kickbacks and misconduct to employment agencies and the Trust's principals, costing him job opportunities. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion on all counts except for the defamation claim, which was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, defamation claims concerning statements to Vincent Minuto and Lynn Warren survived, while others were dismissed due to lack of evidence or qualified privilege.

DefamationSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceBreach of ContractAt-Will EmploymentQualified PrivilegeNegligent MisrepresentationEmployment LawSlanderKickbacks
References
51
Case No. ADJ4464746 (SAC 0358795)
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

ANDREW THOMPSON (Deceased), EDITH THOMPSON (Spouse) vs. HUHTAMAKI AMERICAS, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns a workers' compensation death benefit claim filed by Edith Thompson, widow of Andrew Thompson, who died from asbestos exposure. The defendant sought reconsideration of a prior ruling that her claim was not time-barred. The Board rescinded the prior decision, finding that Labor Code section 5406.5 requires death benefit claims for asbestos-related deaths to be filed within one year of the date of death. Edith Thompson's application, filed over a year after her husband's death, was therefore dismissed as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAndrew ThompsonEdith ThompsonHuhtamaki AmericasInc.ACE American Insurance Co.toxic exposureasbestoscumulative traumadeath benefits
References
2
Case No. ADJ4119034 (OAK 0324958)
Regular
Jun 17, 2014

DEBRA DA RE vs. COBLEY, CORAL, DDS, KOUROSH HARANDI, DDS; ZENITH INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award of permanent total disability. The defendant argued that the award was improperly based on medical opinions including non-physical impairments. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the judge's report, which found the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinions supported the finding of permanent total disability based solely on the admitted physical injuries. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedCumulative InjuryDental HygienistPermanently Totally DisabledAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesVocational ConsultantsUnreasonable Delay
References
2
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
Case No. 533459
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Edward Hopeck

Claimant Edward Hopeck sustained a left knee injury in 1984, leading to a schedule loss of use award which was later increased in 2000. Following knee replacement surgery in 2006, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge marked the case for no further action pending new medical evidence. In 2020, after additional knee surgeries in 2017 and 2019, claimant sought further awards. However, both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the reopening of the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 123, citing the lapse of time since the injury and last payment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the claimant's decade-long inaction in pursuing awards constituted an abandonment of the claim, thus making the time limitations of § 123 applicable.

Workers' Compensation Law § 123Reopening of ClaimStatute of LimitationsSchedule Loss of Use AwardKnee InjuryAppellate ReviewClaim AbandonmentMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. 534627
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Edward Zeltman

Claimant Edward Zeltman appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits, alleging neck, lower back, left shoulder, and consequential knee injuries from two incidents on March 15, 2019, while working for Infinigy Engineering, PLLC. The Board, affirming a WCLJ's ruling, found the claimant not credible due to delayed reporting of a slip and fall, inconsistent medical histories, lack of witnesses, and a potential motive to fabricate claims after being reassigned. The court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Zeltman failed to establish a causal relationship between his injuries and employment, emphasizing the Board's role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility and its reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausally-Related InjuryCredibility AssessmentDelayed ReportingInconsistent Medical HistoriesSlip and FallHeavy Equipment LiftingPre-existing ConditionsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 357 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