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

Young v. Norton

Lawrence D. Young (plaintiff) sued Debra J. Norton and Raymond A. Young (defendants) after falling from a ladder while installing gutters on a three-family residence. Plaintiff, who was paid in cash and services, used an unsecured ladder which 'kicked out,' causing him to fall 18 feet and sustain injuries. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss, arguing they were not 'owners' under the statute. The court determined both defendants, as fee owner (Norton) and life tenant (Young), qualified as 'owners' under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to their interest and control over the property. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding defendants absolutely liable as the unsecured ladder failed, and denied defendants' cross-motions, concluding the absence of an eyewitness did not preclude summary judgment.

Ladder FallConstruction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Owner LiabilityLife EstateFee SimpleSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyAbsolute LiabilityUnsecured Ladder
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Young v. Suffolk County

Plaintiff Deborah Young, individually and as guardian of her children, sued Suffolk County and various other defendants (County, Young, media, and Quatela defendants). She alleged violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1982, 1985, 1986, and state law claims. The claims stemmed from a February 21, 2007 incident where her ex-husband allegedly trashed her home and entered with police without consent, leading to her losing custody of her children. The Court GRANTED summary judgment for all remaining defendants, finding no evidence of state action or conspiracy by private parties and apparent authority for the County defendant's entry. The Court also DENIED the Young defendants' motion for sanctions and DISMISSED state law counterclaims without prejudice.

Section 1983Fourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentCivil RightsWarrantless SearchSummary JudgmentState ActorConspiracyQualified ImmunityApparent Authority
References
87
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02582
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Matter of Young v. Acranom Masonary Inc.

Claimant Timothy Young established a workers' compensation claim for a back injury and received indemnity benefits, despite his treating physician continuously diagnosing a total temporary disability. Young returned to work for a different employer on April 1, 2019, but failed to disclose this information to any party or the Workers' Compensation Board, continuing to cash compensation checks. The employer's carrier subsequently raised a fraud issue under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, supported by video surveillance showing Young engaged in physical activity. The Workers' Compensation Board found that Young violated § 114-a through misrepresentation and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties, including a lifetime bar of indemnity benefits. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the finding of a § 114-a violation but reversed the discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense given mitigating circumstances.

Workers' Compensation FraudDisability BenefitsMisrepresentationMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyIndemnity BenefitsReturn to WorkVideo SurveillanceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05123
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2022

Matter of Young v. DiNapoli

Petitioner Keith Young, a court officer, sought accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits after sustaining injuries from a slip and fall at work. He alleged permanent incapacitation from job duties. The Comptroller denied his applications, ruling that his injuries were not the result of an 'accident' as defined by the Retirement and Social Security Law. Following a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Comptroller's determination. The court found substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Young's fall was a mere misstep, an inherent risk of his ordinary employment duties, rather than an unexpected event constituting an accident.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityCourt OfficerSlip and FallWorkplace InjuryEmployment DutiesMisstepSubstantial EvidenceComptroller's Determination
References
8
Case No. CV-23-1751
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Duane Young

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the apportionment of a workers' compensation award for claimant Duane Young. Young sustained two separate work-related injuries, one in 1971 and another in 2015. The Workers' Compensation Board modified a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, determining that apportionment was necessary, allocating 80% of the award to the 2015 claim and 20% to the 1971 claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial medical evidence, including independent orthopedic examinations and treating physician evaluations that corroborated the apportionment percentages.

ApportionmentPermanent Total DisabilityPrior InjurySubsequent InjuryMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewThird Judicial DepartmentTruck DriverSpinal Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mi-Kyung Cho v. Young Bin Café

The plaintiff, Mi-Kyung Cho, a hostess at Young Bin Café in Flushing, New York, sued her employers, Young Bin Café and Gabin, following a physical assault by a customer in 2008. She alleged negligence, retaliatory discharge under New York and New Jersey anti-discrimination laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with business relations and contract. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all claims. It found that her complaints (a police report and a request for workers' compensation) were not 'protected activity' under the relevant human rights laws, her tortious interference claims lacked merit due to a lack of identified relationships/contracts, and her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was time-barred by New York's one-year statute of limitations.

Retaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentNew York Human Rights LawNew Jersey Law Against DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious InterferenceDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMagistrate Judge DecisionEmployment Discrimination
References
102
Case No. ADJ3741100 (STK 0162140) ADJ1298541 (STK 0207289)
Regular
Mar 21, 2019

Jack Young, Sharoll Young vs. Fowler's Machine Works, FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Jack Young for temporary disability due to a right knee injury. Following the applicant's death, his widow, Sharoll Young, was substituted as the applicant. The parties entered into a Compromise and Release agreement, settling the claim for $75,149.63, with a net payment of $31,227.56 to Ms. Young after deductions for advances and attorney fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and approved the settlement as adequate and in the widow's best interest.

CIGAFremont Insurance Companyliquidationworkers' compensationreconsiderationCompromise and Releasetemporary disabilitydeath benefitsdependentheir
References
0
Case No. 90 Civ. 1005 (RWS)
Regular Panel Decision

Schick v. Ernst & Young

The Investors sued Ernst & Young for securities fraud and common law fraud related to their investments in limited partnerships dealing with thoroughbred racehorses. The Investors alleged E&Y, as auditors, made material misrepresentations and omissions in the June 1986 Balance Sheet, which was part of a private placement memorandum for an exchange offer where limited partnership interests were rolled into shares of Select. E&Y moved to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that the amended complaint failed to specify the amount of alleged overstatement of accounts receivable, did not adequately plead fraudulent omission regarding affiliated transactions due to prior disclosures, and lacked sufficient particularity for E&Y's scienter regarding "going concern" and "liquidity" qualifications, and Kinderhill's indemnitor liabilities. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed, and the state law claims were dismissed for lack of pendent jurisdiction, with leave granted to replead.

Securities FraudCommon Law FraudRule 9(b) Pleading StandardsPlead with ParticularityScienterAuditing MisrepresentationsFinancial StatementsLimited PartnershipsPonzi SchemeDismissal with Leave to Replead
References
21
Case No. CV-23-1751
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

Matter of Young v. LP Transp.

Claimant, Duane Young, a truck driver, had two work-related accidents: one in 1971 while working for LP Transportation, and another in 2015 while working for AIM Integrated Logistics, Inc. Both accidents resulted in workers' compensation claims, with the 1971 injury eventually classified as a permanent partial disability, and the 2015 injury as a permanent total disability. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no basis for apportionment for the 2015 claim to the prior 1971 claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, ruling that apportionment was appropriate, allocating 80% to the 2015 claim and 20% to the 1971 claim, effective February 10, 2022. LP Transportation and its carrier appealed the Board's apportionment decision, which the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, finding it supported by substantial medical evidence.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentSpinal InjuryLaminectomyMedical EvidenceBoard DecisionAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Young v. Tops Markets, Inc.

Thomas J. Young sustained severe injuries from an 18-foot fall at work in April 1994, leading to a jury award of over $8 million for compensatory damages and a derivative claim for his wife. Defendants appealed, challenging a denied motion for an independent medical examination, alleged attorney misconduct, and the jury's substantial awards for past and future pain and suffering. The appellate court found the pain and suffering awards excessive, stipulating a conditional reversal and new trial unless the plaintiff accepted reduced amounts of $1 million for past and $2.5 million for future pain and suffering. The court affirmed other aspects, including the denial of a motion to compel a medical exam, the calculation of structured judgments, and the CPLR 4545 (c) collateral source ruling. This decision outlines the appellate court's review of a complex damages award in a workplace injury case.

Work AccidentFall from HeightLabor Law § 240(1)Damages AssessmentPain and SufferingExcessive VerdictNew Trial ConditionalMedical ExaminationCollateral Source RuleAnnuity Calculation
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 134 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