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

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Edith S. v. Victor C.

This case addresses a respondent's challenge to a paternity hearing, specifically an objection regarding a Support Magistrate's authority to determine estoppel issues. The court found the respondent's procedural objection unavailing, noting that the Support Magistrate correctly referred the equitable estoppel matter to a Family Court Judge as per Family Ct Act § 439 (b). Evidence presented established a familial relationship between the 13-year-old child and the respondent, with the child considering him her father and a social worker testifying about the emotional harm genetic testing would cause. Consequently, the Family Court properly concluded that the respondent is estopped from denying paternity based on the child's best interests.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActSupport MagistrateGenetic TestingFamilial RelationshipPanel DecisionJudicial ReferralChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene County Department of Social Services v. Ward

This is a concurring opinion by Chief Judge Kaye regarding a case involving Ms. Ward and the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). Ms. Ward, facing challenges with her son Jeffrey's severe behavioral issues and a lack of support services, was coerced into permanently relinquishing her parental rights to GCDSS after they refused a temporary relinquishment and failed to provide adequate assistance. She subsequently challenged a child support order, citing statutory exceptions and equitable estoppel due to GCDSS's alleged failures in providing information on parental support obligations and mandatory preventive services. While the court affirmed the original support order, Chief Judge Kaye's opinion highlights the GCDSS's apparent non-compliance with regulatory mandates, including the failure to inform parents of support obligations, conduct a 'best interests' analysis, and refer to essential preventive and emergency mental health services, stressing that such a situation should not recur. However, the requested remedy of estoppel against the agency could not be granted.

Parental RightsChild SupportSocial Services AgencyEquitable EstoppelRegulatory CompliancePreventive ServicesChild WelfareGreene CountyConcurring OpinionFamily Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

The Trustees of the Local 852 General Warehouseman’s Union Pension Fund sued the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) seeking reimbursement for pension benefits paid to retirees of two closed warehouses. The Fund argued for recovery based on equitable estoppel, asserting detrimental reliance on an initial PBGC determination that it would guarantee these benefits. The PBGC moved for summary judgment, contending that estoppel against a federal agency requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or manifest injustice. The Court found no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the PBGC and concluded that its change in determination, made to conform with Congressional intent, did not constitute manifest injustice. Consequently, the Court granted the PBGC's motion for summary judgment, ruling that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.

Equitable EstoppelFederal Agency EstoppelSummary JudgmentERISAPension BenefitsMulti-employer PlanPension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC)Affirmative MisconductManifest InjusticeDetrimental Reliance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Incorporated Village of Freeport v. Sanders

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed their complaint after granting the third-party defendants' motion for renewal. The appellate court found that Special Term erred in dismissing the complaint on collateral estoppel grounds, as the movants failed to demonstrate that the issue was necessarily decided in a prior Workers' Compensation Board proceeding. The Board's finding regarding a settlement without insurer consent did not require a determination of past workers' compensation payments. Furthermore, Special Term erred on equitable estoppel grounds, noting that this doctrine applies against governmental subdivisions only when manifest injustice is shown, which was not the case here. Additionally, equitable estoppel was not available to the third-party defendants as no representations were made to them by the plaintiff, and no claim was asserted against them. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the third-party defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

Collateral EstoppelEquitable EstoppelGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation LienThird-Party ActionMotion to DismissAppealGovernmental SubdivisionCivil ProcedureAppellate Practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kotlyarsky v. New York Post

Plaintiffs Boris and Alla Kotlyarsky and Reliable Rehabilitation Center, Inc. sued defendants New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, and Devlin Barrett for libel. The action stemmed from a December 11, 2000 article in the New York Post that alleged Boris Kotlyarsky was under federal indictment and described Reliable Rehabilitation Center as a 'medical mill.' Plaintiffs claimed they were promised a retraction, which was later withdrawn, leading them to delay filing their lawsuit until August 12, 2002. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the one-year statute of limitations for libel had expired on December 12, 2001. Plaintiffs invoked equitable estoppel, equitable tolling, and promissory estoppel to argue the statute was tolled. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the retraction and thus, the doctrines of estoppel or tolling were not applicable. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

defamationlibelstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelequitable tollingpromissory estoppelsummary judgmentdue diligenceretractionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1983

Equitable General Insurance Co. of Texas v. Yates

Thomas Yates was initially awarded workers' compensation for injuries while employed by Schepps Dairy. Equitable General Insurance Company of Texas, the carrier, obtained a summary judgment against Yates on grounds of untimely claim filing. Yates' subsequent motion for a new trial was conditionally granted upon payment of $500 in attorney's fees to opposing counsel. After Yates filed an uncontested affidavit of inability to pay, the trial court denied the motion for new trial. The court of appeals reversed, and this court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, ruling that while conditional grants of new trial are generally permissible, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion in the face of an uncontested affidavit of inability to pay the imposed monetary condition.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialAttorney's FeesConditional GrantAbuse of DiscretionAffidavit of Inability to PayTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureWorkers' CompensationEquitable ConsiderationsAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. State

James E. Carpenter, a Tennessee Army National Guard member, was injured in 1985. He received federal incapacitation pay and medical expenses, and state Medicaid benefits. His workers' compensation claim, filed in 1987, was dismissed by the Claims Commissioner as time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Carpenter appealed, arguing that these payments tolled the statute or that equitable estoppel applied. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the dismissal, ruling that neither federal nor state benefits qualified as 'voluntary payments of compensation' to toll the statute, and found no affirmative conduct by the state to support equitable estoppel.

Workers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Payments of CompensationMedicaid BenefitsEquitable EstoppelFederal BenefitsTennessee National GuardMotor Vehicle AccidentBack and Neck InjuriesState Employee Claim
References
4
Case No. M2011-00911-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2011

Orlando Residence, LTD. v. Nashville Lodging Company, Nashville Residence Corp., and Kenneth E. Nelson

This appeal concerns the effective date of a judgment against Kenneth E. Nelson, which dictates whether the judgment has expired. The Appellant argued that the doctrines of equitable estoppel and law of the case should prevent the Plaintiff from asserting that the judgment was entered in 2004. The trial court determined that the judgment had not expired, holding its effective date to be October 7, 2004, following a remand that resolved a statute of limitations issue and vacated the original 2000 judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the issues justiciable and within the chancery court's jurisdiction, and rejected the arguments based on the law-of-the-case doctrine and equitable estoppel.

Judgment ExpirationStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelLaw of the CaseFraudulent ConveyancePost-Judgment InterestSubject Matter JurisdictionDirect AppealAppellate ReviewDavidson County Chancery Court
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robare v. Fortune Brands, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Clinton County, which granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff alleged that they contracted throat and tongue cancer as a result of smoking the defendants' cigarettes from 1961 to 1991. The primary issue on appeal was whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should prevent the defendants from using the three-year statute of limitations as a defense. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for equitable estoppel. This was because the plaintiff had timely awareness of the facts requiring further inquiry before the statute of limitations expired, and did not demonstrate a unique fiduciary relationship with the defendants.

Equitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCancer LitigationSmoking Related IllnessFiduciary RelationshipMisrepresentationAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washburn v. Associated Indemnity Corp.

This workers' compensation case involves an appeal by Gary and Sharron Washburn, individually and as representatives of the estate of Howard S. Washburn, challenging a summary judgment granted in favor of Associated Indemnity Corporation. Howard Washburn, a security guard, died while commuting to an overtime assignment. The Industrial Accident Board initially denied benefits, and both parties filed notices to appeal the decision. The primary legal question is whether the doctrines of judicial or equitable estoppel prevented the carrier from denying that Howard was in the course and scope of his employment. The appellate court found neither doctrine applicable, specifically noting the lack of reliance by the Washburns for equitable estoppel, and thus affirmed the trial court's judgment for the carrier.

Workers' CompensationSummary Judgment AppealJudicial EstoppelEquitable EstoppelCourse of EmploymentCommuting InjuryTexas Workers' CompensationIndustrial Accident Board AppealAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Dispute
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,060 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