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

In re Eric CC.

The case involves an appeal by respondents Eric EE. and Elizabeth CC. from Family Court orders adjudicating their children, Eric CC. and Tiffany CC., as abused and/or neglected, and issuing orders of protection. The petitions alleged severe, life-threatening fractures in their six-week-old son, Eric. The Family Court determined the parents caused Eric's injuries, rejecting their "temporary brittle bone disease" defense, and found Tiffany also neglected due to the risk of harm. The appellate court affirmed, citing strong prima facie proof of child abuse and neglect through expert medical testimony, which respondents failed to sufficiently rebut. The court emphasized the credibility findings of the Family Court and the sufficiency of evidence to support the findings of abuse and neglect.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFracturesBlunt-Force TraumaTemporary Brittle Bone DiseaseAppellate ReviewFamily Court Act Article 10Medical Expert TestimonyWitness CredibilityOrders of Protection
References
6
Case No. CA 14-02232
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2015

SVENSON, ERIC, MTR. OF

This case concerns an appeal from an order and judgment that partially vacated an arbitration award. Petitioners, Eric and Marcelle L. Svenson, and respondents, Richard B. Swegan and Debra A. Dinnocenzo, were involved in a property dispute over the removal of maple trees. An arbitrator awarded respondents treble and punitive damages for trespass. The Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, vacated the punitive damages but confirmed the rest of the award. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, rejecting petitioners' arguments that they were estopped from appealing, that the arbitrator misapplied RPAPL 861, and that treble damages were punitive. The court held that an arbitrator's factual and substantive law resolutions are generally not reviewable and that RPAPL 861 treble damages are not inherently punitive.

Arbitration AwardVacating ArbitrationPunitive DamagesTreble DamagesTrespass LawProperty Boundary DisputeAppellate Court DecisionCivil ProcedureReal Property LawJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eric Lutz Construction, Inc. v. McGowan

Eric Lutz Construction, Inc. filed a CPLR article 78 petition seeking review of a New York State Department of Labor determination. The Department of Labor found the petitioner willfully violated Labor Law § 220 by underpaying 43 workers on public works contracts, ordering $141,787.28 in back wages, a 16% interest rate, a 25% civil penalty, and a five-year debarment. The court found substantial evidence supported the finding of willful violation and the order for back wages. However, pursuant to a stipulation, the court annulled the 16% interest rate and the civil penalty, remitting the matter for a new interest rate not exceeding 6%. The determination was otherwise confirmed, and the proceeding was largely dismissed on the merits.

Prevailing WagePublic Works ContractLabor LawCPLR Article 78Wage UnderpaymentCivil PenaltyInterest RateDebarmentWillful ViolationStipulation
References
6
Case No. 2018-07877 (Index No. 702379/15)
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2021

Zhi Eric Zhang v. ABC Corp.

The plaintiff, Zhi Eric Zhang, was injured in a mall restaurant after being attacked by a group of customers from an adjacent karaoke establishment. He initiated an action to recover damages for personal injuries against New World Mall, LLC (the mall's lessee) and Grand Restaurant Group, Inc. (GRGI, the sublessee operating the restaurant and karaoke). The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to protect against unforeseen assaults, and GRGI additionally claimed immunity under the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions as the alter ego of the plaintiff's employer. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants failed to demonstrate prima facie that the assault was unforeseeable and unexpected, and GRGI failed to establish its alter ego status.

Personal InjuryAssaultPremises LiabilityForeseeability of HarmSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ImmunityAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ReviewRestaurant LiabilityMall Liability
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kruse v. Sands Brothers & Co., Ltd.

Peter Kruse petitioned the court to confirm a securities industry arbitration award of $300,960.08 against Sands Brothers & Co. and Peter Pak, who had failed to pay the award issued on June 18, 2002. Respondents filed a counter-petition to vacate the award. The court found that the respondents' challenge was improperly filed as a 'Counter-Petition to Vacate' rather than a formal motion, and also untimely, as it missed the three-month statutory deadline for seeking vacatur. Citing the narrow grounds for vacating arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act and the strong federal policy favoring their enforcement, the court confirmed Kruse's award against Sands and Pak, jointly and severally. The court also granted post-award interest at a rate of 9% from July 18, 2002, until payment.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Vacatur MotionTimeliness of MotionSecurities ArbitrationPost-Award InterestJudicial Review of Arbitration AwardsDistrict Court DecisionArbitrator AuthorityDue Process
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bailey

Defendant Eric Bailey was observed attempting to pickpocket in Midtown Manhattan and was subsequently arrested. During a search, three counterfeit $10 bills were recovered from his pocket, and he made an incriminating statement acknowledging the counterfeit money. Bailey was convicted of attempted grand larceny and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree. The primary legal question before the Court of Appeals was the legal sufficiency of the evidence to prove the

Criminal possessionForged instrumentSufficiency of evidenceIntent to defraudLarcenyCounterfeit moneyPenal LawBurden of proofStatutory interpretationAppellate review
References
5
Case No. ADJ6884562
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

ERIC KRUSE vs. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns whether a 15% reduction in permanent disability indemnity applies when an employer offers an injured employee regular work after their condition is permanent and stationary. The applicant, a parking enforcement officer, sustained a neck and elbow injury and was temporarily disabled before returning to his regular job. The employer offered regular work after the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary, but the applicant had already returned to his normal duties. The majority found that since there was no indication of permanent disability prior to the employer's offer, all permanent indemnity was payable after the offer, entitling the employer to the reduction. However, a dissenting commissioner argued that the offer lacked practical meaning as the applicant had already returned to work and that no weekly payments remained after the offer to be reduced.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEric KruseCity of San Rafaelparking enforcement officerindustrial injuryneck injuryright elbow injurytemporary total disabilitypermanent and stationaryoffer of regular work
References
0
Case No. ADJ1780566 (FRE 0246374) ADJ428063 (FRE 0246373) ADJ3588105 (FRE 0246375) ADJ2219910 (FRE 0247600)
Regular
Dec 01, 2014

ERIC GORDON vs. FRITO-LAY, INC.

This case involves applicant Eric Gordon's appeal of a denied Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination regarding prescribed medications. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied his petition for reconsideration because the applicant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of specific statutory grounds for overturning the IMR decision. The WCAB also affirmed that it lacks jurisdiction to decide constitutional challenges to the IMR process itself. Consequently, the applicant's attempt to have the IMR decision overturned based on alleged excess of power or constitutional grounds was unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical Review (IMR)Petition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Director's powersLabor Code section 4610.6(h)constitutional issuesArticle XIV Section 4cross-examinationmedically necessaryMaximus Federal Services
References
2
Case No. ADJ3762715 (BAK 0154426) ADJ616116 (BAK 0154350)
Regular
Mar 06, 2013

ERIC PETERSEN (Deceased) vs. COUNTY OF KERN

This case involves claims for workers' compensation benefits by Eric Petersen, a deceased volunteer firefighter, for injuries sustained in 2007 and 2008. The County of Kern was found to be the applicant's employer and failed to secure workers' compensation coverage, leading to the joinder of the Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of reconsideration by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and remanded the case. The Board now returns the matter to the trial level to address outstanding issues, including recently filed applications for death benefits by the applicant's significant other.

RemittiturVolunteer firefighterIndustrial injuriesCounty of KernSelf-insured programUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundJoinderPetition for Writ of ReviewDeath BenefitsSignificant other
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2010

Gunther v. Capital One, N.A.

Plaintiff Eric Gunther filed a class action against Capital One Bank and Capital One Financial Corporation, alleging improper banking fees. Gunther, a former North Fork Bank customer, became a Capital One Bank account holder after a merger. He claimed Capital One Bank increased fees, including ATM withdrawal and overdraft fees, without proper notice, charged 'Undeliverable Mail Fees,' deceptively marketed 'free checking,' and failed to provide fee schedule notifications. The Court dismissed most of Gunther's breach of contract claims, except for the 'Undeliverable Mail Fees' claim. Claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment were also dismissed. A New York General Business Law § 349 claim was dismissed with leave to replead. The Court denied dismissal for the declaratory judgment claim against Capital One Bank. All claims against Capital One Financial were dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish direct or indirect liability through corporate veil piercing.

Consumer Class ActionBanking FeesBreach of ContractMotion to DismissCorporate Veil PiercingTruth in Savings Act (TISA)Unjust EnrichmentDeclaratory JudgmentStanding to SueNew York General Business Law
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 104 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