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. ADJ9408927
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

OTONIEL ORTIZ vs. DIAMOND B. MANUFACTURING, NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered By BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC., ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Administered By FIRST COMP MARKEL INSURANCE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by Endurance Reinsurance Corporation of America regarding a workers' compensation award for bilateral hand injury. Endurance argued the applicant filed his claim beyond the statute of limitations. The Board denied the petition, finding the employer failed to provide the applicant with required claim forms and notices. This failure estopped Endurance from asserting the statute of limitations defense.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOtoniel OrtizDiamond B. ManufacturingNational Liability and Fire Insurance CompanyBerkshire Hathaway Inc.Endurance Reinsurance Corporation of AmericaFirst Comp Markel InsuranceADJ9408927Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernstein v. Seeman

Pro se plaintiff Jeffery Bernstein brought an action against May Seeman, MEAG NY Corporation, Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., and Munich Reinsurance Germany, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and defamation. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion to dismiss against Seeman entirely and the defamation claim against MEAG NY, citing no individual liability under Title VII and absolute immunity for the alleged defamatory statements. However, the court denied Munich Re's motion to dismiss the Title VII claim, finding plausible employer liability and an "identity of interest" exception for not being named in the EEOC charge, while granting dismissal for the defamation claim against Munich Re on the basis of absolute privilege.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationDefamationTitle VIIMotion to DismissIndividual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityIdentity of Interest ExceptionAbsolute PrivilegeEEOC
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reeves v. Continental Equities Corp. of America

Alfred P. Reeves sued Continental Equities Corporation of America and Continental Corporation alleging wrongful discharge under federal securities laws and implied contract, severance benefits under New York law and ERISA, and unreimbursed business expenses. After initial federal claims were dismissed and some remanded by the Second Circuit, Reeves filed an Amended Complaint, adding defamation and demands for a jury trial and punitive damages. Continental moved to dismiss certain state law claims and strike the jury demand and punitive damages requests. The court dismissed the federal securities law claim (again) and the defamation claim for lack of specificity and potential untimeliness. It allowed the ERISA severance benefits claim and the remaining state law claims (wrongful discharge, unreimbursed business expenses) to proceed under pendent jurisdiction. The jury trial demand for ERISA benefits was allowed to stand for further discovery, and punitive damages for ERISA were deferred, but punitive damages for the breach of contract claim were stricken under New York law.

wrongful dischargeERISAseverance benefitsimplied contractdefamationpunitive damagesjury trialfederal securities lawspendent jurisdictionsummary judgment
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LTV Steel Co. v. Connors (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal of two orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The first order granted partial summary judgment to the Mining Companies and LTV Steel Corporation, holding they were not legally obligated to pay retiree health benefits. The second order granted the United Mine Workers of America's cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust was liable to pay these benefits. The Plan & Trust appealed both orders to the District Court, arguing violations of the Retiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection Act, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denial of due process, and misinterpretation of its obligations under the Wage Agreement's 'no longer in business' clause. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's orders, finding the Act inapplicable, subject matter jurisdiction proper as a core proceeding, sufficient opportunity to litigate, and the Plan & Trust liable due to contractual interpretation and collateral estoppel from prior litigations.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 ReorganizationRetiree Health BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementUMWAEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionCore ProceedingCollateral Estoppel
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2009

Global Reinsurance Corp. of America v. Argonaut Insurance

This case concerns Global Reinsurance Corporation of America's petition to confirm an arbitration award against Argonaut Insurance Company. The arbitration panel found Argonaut liable for over $1.9 million under reinsurance agreements, which Argonaut challenged in part, seeking to vacate the award concerning contingent liabilities known as 'Commutations.' District Judge William H. Pauley III granted Global's petition to confirm the entire award and awarded post-award/pre-judgment interest. The court denied Argonaut's motion to vacate, finding no manifest disregard of the law by the arbitrators regarding notice, the definition of 'Loss Occurrence,' or the 'follow-the-settlements' doctrine. Global's request for attorneys' fees was also denied due to lack of statutory or contractual authority.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationReinsurance AgreementsRetrocessionaire LiabilityContingent LiabilitiesLoss Occurrence InterpretationFollow-the-Settlements DoctrineManifest Disregard of LawPost-Award InterestPre-Judgment InterestAttorneys' Fees Denial
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandhan v. Laboratory Corp. of America

Plaintiff Angela Bandhan sued her former employer, Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp.), alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis recommended granting summary judgment on failure to promote and unequal pay claims, but denying it on wrongful termination and retaliation claims. Both parties filed objections to the Report. District Judge Berman adopted the Magistrate's Report in its entirety, finding no prima facie case for failure to promote or unequal pay, but genuine issues of material fact regarding wrongful termination and retaliation, allowing those claims to proceed to trial. The Court therefore granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and directed the parties to a trial scheduling/settlement conference.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteUnequal PayWrongful Termination
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Komatsu America Corp. v. Portside Cargo Securing Co.

Komatsu America Corp. sued Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) for damage to cargo sustained during a train derailment. Komatsu alleged that Conrail, a connecting carrier, received the shipment in New Jersey and delivered it in damaged condition to Michigan. The plaintiff asserted federal question jurisdiction under the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 11707) and, alternatively, pendent party jurisdiction. The court, presided over by District Judge Lasker, determined there was no federal question jurisdiction because the Carmack Amendment applies only to the initial or delivering carrier, neither of which Conrail was found to be. Furthermore, the court declined to exercise pendent party jurisdiction based on judicial discretion, leading to the dismissal of the complaint against Conrail and the denial of Komatsu's related motions.

Cargo damageTrain derailmentCarmack AmendmentFederal question jurisdictionPendent party jurisdictionConnecting carrierDelivering carrierBill of ladingJudicial discretionSubject matter jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2012

Delaney v. Bank of America Corp.

John Delaney sued Bank of America (BoA) alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and breach of an oral contract related to his internal transfer. Delaney claimed his termination was age-discriminatory and that BoA reneged on a promise regarding account assignments and compensation. BoA moved for summary judgment, asserting Delaney failed to show a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the alleged oral contract was too vague, superseded by discretionary bonus policies, and that Delaney was an at-will employee. The court found insufficient admissible evidence for age discrimination, supporting BoA's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (reduction in force based on performance). Additionally, the court ruled the oral agreement lacked definiteness and was overridden by BoA's discretionary bonus plan, and as an at-will employee, Delaney's termination was permissible. Consequently, the court granted BoA's motion for summary judgment on both claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentReduction in ForceAt-Will EmploymentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBut-For CausationOral AgreementDiscretionary Bonus
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Rosario v. Local 1106 Transport Works of America

Plaintiff Louis Rosario sued his former employer, Transervice Lease Corporation, and his union, Transport Workers of America, Local 1106, alleging wrongful termination and inadequate union representation under the LMRA. Rosario's employment was terminated after he was accused of falsifying documents related to a vehicle repair. His union, Local 1106, failed to file for arbitration within the required 45-day period, leading an arbitrator to deem the grievance non-arbitrable in December 2010. Rosario filed his complaint in January 2013, more than two years after the arbitration denial. The Court granted Transervice's motion to dismiss, finding Rosario's hybrid § 301 LMRA claim time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations. The Court also dismissed the federal claim against Local 1106 sua sponte and declined supplemental jurisdiction over Rosario's state-law negligence claim against the union, dismissing it without prejudice.

Hybrid § 301 LMRAWrongful TerminationBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationEquitable EstoppelFederal JurisdictionState Law Claim
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galati v. New York Convention Center Development Corp.

A plaintiff, an electrical maintenance worker at the Jacob Javits Center, sustained an injury after slipping on water in a hallway. The water was believed to have originated from an ice machine used by employees of Service America Corporation, the food vendor at the Javits Center. Plaintiff observed Service America workers transporting ice shortly before the fall and noted frequent drips from their carts. While Service America acknowledged prior spills and safety discussions, the Supreme Court initially found insufficient evidence to hold them responsible. However, an appellate court disagreed, ruling that the cumulative evidence was sufficient to withstand the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby allowing the case to proceed.

slip and fallpremises liabilitynegligencesummary judgmentappellate reviewevidence sufficiencyice spillworkplace injuryJavits CenterService America Corporation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,793 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