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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06751
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

All State Flooring Distributors, L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC

Plaintiff, All State Flooring Distributors, L.P., initiated legal action against MD Floors, LLC, and Michael Savino to recover $48,188.50 for wood flooring delivered. MD Floors, in turn, filed counterclaims asserting that it incurred additional labor costs due to faulty flooring and was subjected to double-billing. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing both a procedural default and the presence of triable issues of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, while correcting the Supreme Court's finding of a procedural default. The Appellate Division concurred that substantial triable issues of fact existed regarding partial payments, attorney's fees, and the alleged personal guaranty by Savino, and also affirmed the existence of triable issues concerning MD Floors' counterclaims for additional labor costs and double-billing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal GuarantyCounterclaimsProcedural DefaultAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactAttorney's FeesCommercial LawContract Dispute
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03582
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2021

Mowla v. Baozhu Wu

Plaintiff MD Rafiquil Mowla was injured while working at the single-family residence owned by defendant Baozhu Wu. While climbing an extension ladder to access a garage roof to clean brick columns, a brick column crumbled, causing him to fall and sustain personal injuries. Mowla subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim but denied dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The defendant appealed this denial. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, specifically by not demonstrating that the dangerous condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time to allow for discovery and remedy, or that the condition was latent.

personal injurypremises liabilityladder falldefective conditionhomeowner liabilitysummary judgment motionLabor Law § 200common-law negligenceduty to maintain propertyactual notice
References
18
Case No. ADJ15819265
Regular
May 02, 2025

MD HOSSAIN, SALMA BASHAR vs. ALI'S ENTERPRISES, INC., TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Salma Bashar, widow of deceased Md Hossain, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings and Order which concluded that the decedent's death was not work-related. She contended that the WCJ erred by relying on the opinions of PQME Gerald Weingarten, M.D., asserting they lacked substantial medical evidence regarding causation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, finding Dr. Weingarten's opinions incomplete and speculative due to an inadequate record, including missing medical history and the autopsy report not being admitted into evidence. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, recommending additional development of the medical record.

AOE/COEPQMEsubstantial medical evidencecausationreconsiderationrescinddevelop the recordWCJdeath benefitsindustrial injury
References
22
Case No. ADJ10955890
Regular
Dec 21, 2018

JONATHAN ELFORD vs. MD OFFICE SOLUTIONS INC., AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by MD Office Solutions Inc. (Liberty Mutual/American Economy Insurance Company) challenging a prior workers' compensation award. The defendant alleges a mutual mistake regarding insurance coverage for the applicant's March 9, 2015 injury, claiming they were not the liable carrier. However, the Board dismissed the petition as untimely, noting it was filed 61 days after the award was served. The Board suggested the defendant should instead file a petition to set aside the award based on good cause, such as mutual mistake, and directed the matter back to the trial level.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardMutual Mistake of FactWorkers' Compensation CoverageLiable CarrierTimelinessDismissedPetition to Set Aside AwardLabor Code Section 5803Good Cause
References
2
Case No. ADJ7745791, ADJ7745809
Regular
Jan 14, 2014

JUAN NAVA vs. OWENS CORNING, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a previous order that intended to dismiss MD Tox Laboratories' lien. The WCAB found that MD Tox Laboratories had not actually filed a lien in the subject cases, nor were they a party at the time of the lien conference, thus rendering the dismissal order invalid. Since no lien was filed, MD Tox Laboratories was not subject to lien activation fees or obligated to appear at the conference. The WCAB clarified that MD Tox Laboratories may file a lien if it is still timely and accompanied by the proper fees.

MD Tox LaboratoriesPetition for Reconsiderationlien activation feelien conferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardnonpartyElectronic Adjudication Management Systemlien claimantLabor CodeWCAB Rule
References
1
Case No. ADJ12294911
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

KHADIJAH BROWN vs. REGINALD AJAKWE, MD, RAYMOND TATEVOSSIAN, MD, MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Khadijah Brown sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that she did not sustain a psychiatric injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and that a good faith personnel action defense was established. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the WCJ erroneously concluded applicant did not sustain injury to her psyche AOE/COE and failed to recognize objective evidence of harassment. The Board rescinded the original findings and substituted new findings, determining that applicant did sustain injury to her psyche AOE/COE and that this injury resulted from actual events of employment. The issue of the defendant's good faith personnel action defense was deferred for further proceedings.

AOE/COEpsychiatric injuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(b)(1)actual events of employmentharassmentgood faith personnel actionVerga v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.racial epithetsuspensiontermination
References
8
Case No. 04-MD-1596
Regular Panel Decision

UFCW Local 1776 v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Plaintiffs moved for the declassification of documents produced by Eli Lilly & Company in the ongoing multidistrict litigation concerning the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa. Initially, the motion was deferred while an injunction against the further dissemination of confidential documents was pending. Following the resolution of the injunction proceedings, the court addressed whether the declassification motion could proceed and what standards should apply. Distinguishing the plaintiffs' intent to use the documents substantively in their suit from motions by non-parties, the court decided the motion should proceed. It referred the matter to Special Master Woodin, instructing him to declassify any documents not falling within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) and, even for those that do, to declassify them unless the defendant demonstrates an extraordinary reason for continued sealing.

Multidistrict LitigationDiscoveryDeclassification MotionConfidentialityProtective OrderFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c)ZyprexaPharmaceutical LitigationInjunctionSpecial Master
References
19
Case No. 12-MD-2395
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2014

Persaud v. Caribbean Airlines Ltd.

This case is a personal injury action stemming from the 2011 crash landing of Caribbean Airlines Flight BW 523 in Guyana. The core legal question is whether Guyana is a party to the Warsaw Convention, as this impacts the court's subject matter jurisdiction. After analyzing the positions of both the United States and Guyanese governments, particularly their conduct regarding Treaties in Force and formal treaty accessions, the court concluded that Guyana is not a party to the Convention. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied, and plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaints. A subsequent request for an interlocutory appeal of this decision was also denied.

International LawTreaty InterpretationWarsaw ConventionSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal InjuryAir CrashGuyanaUnited States State DepartmentTreaty SuccessionMotion to Dismiss
References
30
Case No. 04-MD-1596
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2006

In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation

This order by Senior District Judge Weinstein addresses legal fee allocation in a coordinated multi-district litigation against Eli Lilly & Company concerning the prescription drug Zyprexa. Following a partial settlement covering approximately 8,000 individual plaintiffs, the court adopted a proposal from special settlement masters regarding fee caps. The court modified the proposed cap, reducing it from 37.5% to 35% for most recoveries, while maintaining a 20% cap for "Track A" settlements. The special masters are granted discretionary authority to adjust fees within a range of 30% to 37.5% based on individual case circumstances, with appeal rights to the court. The decision emphasizes the court's inherent authority to supervise attorney fees, particularly in quasi-class actions and mass litigations, to ensure fairness and prevent excessive charges to clients, drawing parallels to class action rules and state laws limiting contingent fees.

Mass TortMulti-District LitigationFee AllocationContingency FeesAttorney FeesEthical SupervisionSettlementZyprexa LitigationQuasi-Class ActionJudicial Discretion
References
23
Case No. 06-md-1775
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2013

In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses objections to a Magistrate Judge's directive for partial disclosure of grand jury testimony from John Doe and James Doe, given in a federal investigation into price-fixing in the air cargo industry. District Judge John Gleeson sustained the objections filed by John Doe, James Doe, Airline 1, and Airline 2. The court determined that the Magistrate Judge erred by not adequately balancing the plaintiffs' particularized need for the testimony against the strong policy interest in maintaining grand jury secrecy. Despite the plaintiffs' need for impeachment or recollection refreshing, the court found this did not outweigh concerns about potential retaliation, social stigma, and the protection of witness reputations within the industry. Consequently, the grand jury testimony was ordered not to be disclosed.

Grand Jury SecrecyAntitrust LitigationPrice-fixing ConspiracyWitness Testimony DisclosureFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 6(e)Douglas Oil StandardParticularized NeedEastern District of New YorkCivil ProcedureMagistrate Judge Order
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 16 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