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

Bulkferts Inc. v. Salatin Inc.

The plaintiff, Bulkferts, Inc., sued Salatin and Franco Ferri, Inc., alleging a conspiracy to restrain trade and monopolize the fertilizer market under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment. The court, presided over by District Judge Robert L. Carter, denied summary judgment for the Sherman Act count (count one), finding factual questions regarding the independence of actors and the attempt to monopolize. However, counts two and three, alleging RICO violations, were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show that defendants were engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity related to obtaining an interest in or operating an enterprise. The court also discussed the Noerr-Pennington doctrine but deferred its application due to factual questions of intent.

Antitrust LawSherman ActRICO ActConspiracyMonopolizationSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissNoerr-Pennington DoctrineForeign RelationsPersonal Jurisdiction
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employees Committed for Justice v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Plaintiffs Courtney Davis and Employees Committed for Justice (ECJ) brought a class-action lawsuit against Eastman Kodak Company, alleging systemic race discrimination and retaliation in employment practices, including hostile work environment, compensation, and promotions. Kodak moved to dismiss portions of the complaint, arguing against the applicability of pattern or practice theory to hostile work environment and retaliation claims, and challenging ECJ's associational standing. Kodak also sought dismissal based on employee releases and statute of limitations. The United States Magistrate Judge denied Kodak's motion to dismiss on all grounds, finding that pattern or practice claims are compatible with hostile work environment and retaliation allegations, and that ECJ possesses associational standing. The court also deferred decisions on the validity of releases and statute of limitations defenses, citing the need for further factual development.

Race DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentClass ActionPattern or PracticeRetaliationAssociational StandingMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981
References
59
Case No. 570642/16
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2017

Goldman v. Flynn

The Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed a Civil Court judgment that awarded possession to the landlords in a holdover summary proceeding. The trial court's detailed factual findings that tenant John Flynn committed a nuisance through a pattern of objectionable behavior, including verbal abuse and physical assault, were sustained. The appellate court found ample record evidence to support these findings. Appellants' claims regarding the necessity of a guardian ad litem and timely compliance with regulations were rejected as they were raised for the first time on appeal.

NuisanceHoldover ProceedingSummary ProceedingAppellate ReviewFactual FindingsVerbal AbusePhysical AssaultGuardian Ad LitemTimely ComplianceRent and Eviction Regulations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Miles v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant sought workers’ compensation benefits for work-related stress resulting from a demotion and reassignment of duties. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, determining that the demotion was lawful and the employer's poor handling of the situation did not constitute bad faith under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 [7]. Claimant appealed, asserting that the stress stemmed from the employer's pattern of harassment, humiliation, and conspiracy, rather than a lawful personnel decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the issue of good faith was a factual matter for the Board and that the record contained substantial evidence to support its findings.

Workers' CompensationStress ClaimDemotionPersonnel DecisionEmployer ConductBad FaithHarassmentFactual IssueAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re 12 Cornelia Street, Inc.

The dissenting opinion argues for reversing the board's finding that real estate salesmen are employees of the appellant corporation. The board's decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of 19 NYCRR 175.21 and section 441 of the Real Property Law, a conclusion that this court has previously repudiated. The record also fails to support the board's finding regarding mandatory office time, as salesmen set their own schedules and the employer did not require attendance. Additionally, the significance attached to workers' compensation insurance coverage is diminished because agents paid for it under duress from the corporation's carrier. Further evidence, such as agents paying for most business expenses, no prescribed training, and independent work flexibility, indicates an independent contractor status. This factual pattern is consistent with prior cases that found insufficient control to establish an employer-employee relationship.

Real Estate BusinessIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipSalesmenWorkers' Compensation InsuranceSupervision and ControlReal Property LawAdministrative RegulationDissenting OpinionBoard Decision Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West Mountain Sales, Inc. v. Logan Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff West Mountain Sales, Inc. sued Logan Manufacturing Company and its agents, alleging violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and state law, claiming interference with an exclusive distributorship agreement. Defendants moved to dismiss, and one defendant sought Rule 11 sanctions. The court found the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a pattern of racketeering activity with adequate continuity, as required by Supreme Court precedent in H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., as the alleged acts spanned less than four months. Consequently, the RICO claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The motion for Rule 11 sanctions was denied, as the court found the factual and legal bases for the complaint, despite its deficiencies, were not objectively unreasonable given the evolving nature of RICO law.

RICO ActRacketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActExclusive DistributorshipBreach of ContractFraud AllegationsMotion to DismissRule 9(b) ParticularityRule 11 SanctionsContinuity RequirementPattern of Racketeering Activity
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lahrick L.

Lahrick L., a five-month-old infant, suffered extensive first and second-degree burns while in the custody of the respondents. The petitioner presented prima facie evidence of child neglect based on these injuries. The respondents claimed the child rolled off a bed and came into contact with a hot radiator. However, Dr. Moohr, a pediatrics expert specializing in child abuse burn injuries, refuted this explanation, stating the burn patterns were inconsistent with radiator burns and more consistent with hot liquid splatter. Additionally, a caseworker testified that the radiator in question was cold and inoperable on two separate visits in January 1985. The dissenting judge, Eiber, J., found the respondents' explanation factually insufficient to rebut the petitioner's prima facie showing of neglect and argued that the record contained ample evidence to support a finding of child neglect, urging for a finding of guilt and remittal for a dispositional hearing.

child neglectburn injuriesprima facie evidenceexpert medical testimonydiscrediting parental explanationcircumstantial evidenceFamily Court Actdissenting opinioninfant injuriesburden of proof
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Puricelli v. CNA Insurance

Plaintiffs Diane Puricelli and Charles Hughes jointly sued their former employer, CNA, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Human Rights Law, alongside intentional infliction of emotional distress. CNA sought to sever the plaintiffs' claims or hold separate trials, arguing they were misjoined and lacked common transactional origins or questions of law/fact. The court, applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a) and 42(b), determined that the claims were sufficiently related due to a common pattern of alleged age discrimination following CNA's takeover of Continental Insurance Company. Despite individual factual differences, the court found both a 'same transaction or occurrence' and 'common question of law or fact.' Consequently, the defendant's motion to sever the claims or conduct separate trials was denied, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed jointly.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSeverance of ClaimsJoinder of PartiesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 20(a)Rule 42(b)Human Rights LawEmotional DistressEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Miller

Plaintiff, a gas pump attendant, was injured when a customer's car, operated by a co-worker, suddenly moved forward, striking him. The defendant customer had left her car running and unattended. Plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence. The defendant then initiated a third-party action against the co-worker and the service station owner. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing no factual issues existed and failure to state a cause of action. Special Term denied this motion, finding triable factual issues. This appeal affirmed Special Term's decision, holding that the complaint stated a cause of action in negligence and that factual disputes precluded summary judgment. The court also clarified that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) did not bar the action against the third-party owner for her own negligence, and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a) was not applicable as the car was not "unattended" under the statute.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation ImmunityThird-Party LiabilityVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate CauseDuty of CareAppellate Court Decision
References
12
Case No. ADJ11136346, ADJ10857795
Regular
Mar 08, 2019

IRMA NELSON vs. SAFEWAY/ALBERTSON'S HOLDINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for disqualification against a WCJ. The petition failed to provide specific, factual allegations under penalty of perjury to support claims of bias or an expressed opinion on the merits. Because the petition lacked the required factual basis under Labor Code section 5311 and relevant procedural rules, it was insufficient to warrant disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641unqualified opinionbiasenmityWCAB Rule 10452affidavit
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,937 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