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

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Tredegar Corp.

Exxon Mobil Corporation sued Tredegar Corporation alleging breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Exxon claimed Tredegar failed to indemnify it for a settlement in an underlying personal injury action and failed to cooperate in Exxon's defense as per the APA. Tredegar filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, finding the indemnification provisions of the APA ambiguous regarding whether the liability was 'assumed' or 'retained'. However, the court largely denied the motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that Exxon plausibly alleged a breach of Tredegar's duty to cooperate and provide reasonable access to employees, with a partial grant for the records access claim under Section 12.7 of the APA.

asset purchase agreementindemnification clausebreach of contractduty to cooperatemotion to dismisscontract ambiguitycorporate acquisitionpre-closing occurrencespost-closing eventslitigation defense
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monell v. Scooter Store, Ltd.

The plaintiff, a 93-year-old woman with limited mobility, commenced an action against The Scooter Store Ltd. and Pride Mobility Products Corporation after her three-wheeled Go-Go Ultra X Scooter allegedly tipped over due to a design defect and inadequate warnings. She claimed negligence, strict tort liability, and breach of warranties. The defendants sought to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness and moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion to exclude the expert, finding his testimony sufficiently reliable. It also denied summary judgment on the claims of defective design, failure to warn, and negligence, finding genuine issues of material fact. However, summary judgment was granted to the defendants regarding the breach of express warranty claims, which the plaintiff had abandoned.

Products LiabilityDefective DesignFailure to WarnSummary Judgment MotionExpert Witness AdmissibilityMobility Scooter AccidentNegligence ClaimsImplied Warranty ClaimsFederal Civil ProcedureDistrict Court Decision
References
43
Case No. 15-01392
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Music Mix Mobile LLC v. Newman (In re Stage Presence, Inc.)

This adversary proceeding involves claims by Music Mix Mobile, LLC and other plaintiffs against Stage Presence, Inc. and its owner, Allen Newman. Plaintiffs alleged they were not paid for services provided for a benefit concert and sought to hold Mr. Newman personally liable for Stage Presence's debts under alter ego or piercing the corporate veil theories. The court analyzed whether Mr. Newman excessively dominated Stage Presence and if this was used to perpetrate fraud or injustice. The decision concluded that Stage Presence maintained its separate corporate identity in key financial and operational aspects, and Mr. Newman genuinely believed the concert's funding was legitimate. Consequently, the court dismissed the alter ego claims against Mr. Newman while allowing the underlying claims against Stage Presence.

Bankruptcy LawAlter Ego DoctrinePiercing the Corporate VeilCorporate LiabilityCreditor ClaimsDebtor-Creditor LawFraudulent MisrepresentationContractual ObligationsCorporate FormalitiesUndercapitalization
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pierno v. Mobil Oil Corp.

On February 21, 2003, a gasoline barge exploded at Port Mobil in Staten Island, causing an earthquake-like force and destruction. Plaintiff Stephen Pierno, a New York City police officer, was injured when he tripped and fell on snow and ice on Port Mobil's driveway while responding to the explosion. Pierno sued Mobil Oil Corporation, the landowner, alleging negligence and premises liability under General Municipal Law § 205-e (1). Defendants Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc., B. No. 125 Corporation, and Bouchard Coastwise Management Corp. sought dismissal or a stay, citing a federal limitation of liability proceeding and a prior injunction. The court denied all defendant motions, asserting state court jurisdiction for the land-based negligence claim and declining summary judgment due to insufficient discovery.

Gasoline barge explosionPort MobilStaten IslandPolice officer injuryPremises liabilityNegligenceAdmiralty jurisdictionMaritime law preemptionGeneral Municipal Law § 205-eSummary judgment
References
12
Case No. ADJ7040878
Regular
Dec 28, 2011

PATRICIA FINKS vs. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, PETROLEUM CASUALTY COMPANY C/O EXXON MOBIL RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves Biocare RX Specialty Pharmacy's untimely petition for reconsideration of an order disallowing their lien claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was filed on October 31, 2011, well past the jurisdictional deadline of twenty-five days from the August 11, 2011 service of the original order. The WCAB emphasized that petitions for reconsideration are deemed filed upon receipt, not mailing, and that the time limit is jurisdictional. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the power to grant the untimely petition.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Disallowing LienLien ClaimantWCJuntimely petitionjurisdictional time limitLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013WCAB Rule 10507
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McIver v. Mobil Oil Corp.

A claimant, employed by Mobil Oil Corporation, suffered a foot injury in 1975 that led to the development of a synovial sarcoma and subsequent amputation. The claimant filed for workers' compensation, but Mobil denied a causal connection between the injury and the cancer. After conflicting expert medical testimony and procedural disputes regarding expert witnesses and evidence, the Workers' Compensation Board concluded that a causal relationship existed. Mobil appealed this decision, raising concerns about due process and the removal of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no merit in Mobil's contentions.

Workers' CompensationCausal ConnectionSynovial SarcomaAmputationExpert Medical TestimonyDue ProcessImpartial SpecialistEvidentiary RulesCross-examinationBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sprint Communications Co. v. Jasco Trading, Inc.

The case involves Plaintiffs Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Nextel Corporation, Boost Worldwide, Inc., and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (collectively 'Sprint') against Defendants Jasco Trading, Inc., Alan Savdie, YRB Trading Corp., and Yehudah Bodek. Plaintiffs initiated the action alleging various claims including breach of contract, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, stemming from an alleged 'Bulk Handset Trafficking Scheme.' The court considered two primary motions: Plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement agreement with the YRB Defendants and the YRB Defendants' motion to stay the case pending arbitration. Applying the Winston factors, the Court determined that no binding settlement agreement was reached, citing an implied reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a signed writing, disagreement on a material term, and the nature of such agreements typically requiring formalization. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement. The YRB Defendants' motion to stay for arbitration was also denied, but without prejudice, due to their denial of knowledge regarding the arbitration agreement and insufficient briefing on the merits.

Contract LawSettlement EnforceabilityOral AgreementsWinston FactorsArbitration ClauseMotion to EnforceMotion to StayBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionTrademark Infringement
References
69
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08510
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2019

Franklin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

The plaintiff, Mark Franklin, brought an action against T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Dyckman Realty Associates L.P. T-Mobile and Dyckman Realty then filed a third-party action against Energy Design Service Systems, LLC, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied T-Mobile and Dyckman Realty's motion for summary judgment on their indemnification claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding that issues of fact regarding the negligence of the defendants/third-party plaintiffs precluded summary judgment.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentNegligenceDangerous ConditionPremises LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate Division First DepartmentLabor LawDuty to Keep Premises SafeNotice of Hazard
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07763 [176 AD3d 1160]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2019

Bruno v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc.

The plaintiff, Randal Bruno, a maintenance technician, sustained injuries when he tripped on a "step-over" on a roof leased by T-Mobile, USA, Inc. He initiated a consolidated action against T-Mobile and its predecessor, Omnipoint Communications, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing these causes of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the defendants established prima facie that the step-over was not a dangerous condition and that they lacked actual or constructive notice of any defect. The court further determined that the plaintiff's expert affidavit, relying on inapplicable code provisions, was insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Premises liabilitySummary judgmentNegligenceLabor Law § 200Appellate DivisionDangerous conditionNotice requirementPersonal injuryWorkplace accidentAffirmed decision
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,629 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