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

Kwitek v. United States Postal Service

Edward Kwitek, a driver for Midwest Transport, Inc., sued the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained while loading mail at a post office, alleging negligence by USPS employees. The government moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that Kwitek was an independent contractor and his injury resulted from a discretionary function, thereby making the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity inapplicable. The court denied the government's motion. It ruled that the independent contractor exception did not apply because the alleged negligence was on the part of USPS employees failing to perform their regular duties. Furthermore, the discretionary function exception was also inapplicable, as the alleged conduct was not policy-driven but rather a failure to follow established protocol. The case was then referred for a settlement conference.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionIndependent Contractor ExceptionDiscretionary Function ExceptionNegligenceUnited States Postal ServicePersonal InjuryLoading Dock InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Elias v. New York City Human Resources Administration

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits claim, filed on March 10, 1987, was timely. This decision came despite the claimant's initial failure to provide timely written notice, which was excused because the employer had actual notice of the injury. The claimant suffered a back injury on October 15, 1985, while at work, pushing a file cabinet. The Board found that the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 did not bar the claim. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling in favor of the claimant.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTimely NoticeActual NoticeBack InjuryEmployer LiabilityBoard DecisionAppealExcused NoticeOccupational Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the New York City Board of Health’s Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule, commonly known as the "Soda Ban." The rule prohibited certain food service establishments from serving sugary drinks in sizes larger than 16 ounces. Petitioners, various interest groups, argued that the Board of Health exceeded its lawfully delegated authority and violated the principle of separation of powers. Both the Supreme Court and this appellate court agreed, declaring the regulation invalid. The court applied the four-factor test from Boreali v Axelrod, concluding that the Board improperly engaged in legislative policymaking rather than interstitial rulemaking, balancing competing concerns, acting without legislative guidance, addressing an area of legislative failure, and without requiring special expertise.

ConstitutionalitySeparation of PowersAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityPublic HealthSugary DrinksSoda BanLegislative AuthorityUltra ViresArticle 78 Proceeding
References
23
Case No. ADJ7313244
Regular
Sep 14, 2012

KEVIN WRIGHT vs. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to sanction the defendant's attorneys $500 for misrepresenting the record and failing to follow procedural rules. The defendant's petition for reconsideration selectively quoted and omitted material facts from medical depositions, thereby distorting the evidence. Specifically, the defendant misrepresented a QME's opinion on industrial causation and applicant's stress levels. This failure to fairly state the evidence and provide specific record citations violates WCAB rules and warrants sanction.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5813cumulative trauma injuryindustrial causationPetition for ReconsiderationPanel QMEWCJRules of Practice and Procedurematerial misrepresentationselective quotation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tessler v. City of New York

The case involves an attorney, Mr. Tessler, who challenged the New York City Police Department's License Division's revocation of his handgun license following a domestic incident. The revocation was based on his alleged failure to properly safeguard his firearms and non-compliance with reporting requirements. While the court upheld the constitutional validity of the challenged regulations and found sufficient evidence for violations, it ruled that the License Division's penalty determination was partly based on an erroneous interpretation of firearm storage rules. Consequently, the court partially granted the respondents' motion to dismiss, denied part of the petitioner's claims, and remanded the case for a reevaluation of the penalty, urging consideration of the petitioner's personal circumstances.

Handgun License RevocationSecond Amendment RightsAdministrative LawDomestic IncidentFirearm SafetyRegulatory InterpretationJudicial ReviewDue ProcessNew York City Police DepartmentLicense Division
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pittman v. ABM Industries, Inc.

The case involves a claimant who suffered a work-related back injury resulting in a permanent partial disability. Following a brief return to work, she retired, with the Workers' Compensation Board acknowledging her disability contributed to this decision. However, the Board denied postretirement benefits, asserting her failure to seek employment within medical limitations constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that once an involuntary retirement due to disability is established, the inference of reduced earnings due to disability persists unless explicitly disproven by evidence that another factor was the sole cause. The court found that the claimant's failure to seek work was not the sole cause of her reduced earning capacity. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' Compensation AppealPermanent Partial DisabilityInvoluntary RetirementVoluntary Withdrawal DefenseLabor Market AttachmentReduced Earning CapacityPostretirement BenefitsMedical AdviceBurden of ProofAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2001

Claim of Hatter v. New Venture Gear

A claimant, an apprentice tinsmith, sustained two work-related back injuries in 1996 and 1999, subsequently receiving workers' compensation benefits. In March 2001, the employer's carrier sought to suspend payments following an independent medical examination indicating the claimant was capable of light-duty work, coupled with her failure to report for a new assignment. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially ruled against voluntary withdrawal, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn and rescinded awards after April 10, 2001. On appeal, the Court reversed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the employer failed to demonstrate an actual offer of a light-duty position consistent with the claimant's medical limitations. The Court concluded that benefits could not be denied for a failure to accept a non-existent position and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

voluntary withdrawallabor marketlight-duty assignmentworkers' compensation benefitsindependent medical examinationmedical limitationsemployer obligationsappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceremittal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Chemical Bank

Plaintiff, Ms. Martin, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Chemical Bank, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Following a jury verdict for Chemical Bank and the entry of judgment on August 28, 1995, Ms. Martin, proceeding pro se, filed a motion on June 7, 1996, to vacate the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). She alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, judicial errors in evidentiary rulings, the failure of a subpoenaed witness to appear, and false testimony from defendant's witnesses. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kaplan, denied the motion both on the merits and for untimeliness. The court emphasized that Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and not a substitute for appeal, and that her complaints largely stemmed from counsel's tactical decisions or represented an attempt to re-litigate the case.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawRule 60(b)Motion to VacateJudgmentIneffective Assistance of CounselPerjuryEvidentiary RulingsFederal CourtsPost-Judgment Relief
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raitport v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The petitioners initiated an arbitration claim before the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) against Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (SSB) and CIBC World Markets Corp., alleging that their brokers failed to protect their investments. Following the removal of one arbitrator and the recusal of another, the arbitration proceeded with a reconstituted panel, which ultimately denied the petitioners' claims. Subsequently, the petitioners commenced a proceeding to vacate the arbitration award, contending that the arbitrator's removal violated NASD rules and compromised the arbitration's integrity. The Supreme Court denied their motion to vacate and granted SSB's cross-motion to confirm the award. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's determination, holding that a mere failure to follow contractual procedures is not grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511 or Federal Arbitration Act § 10, and that the petitioners waived their objection to the reconstituted panel by not raising it at the appropriate time.

Arbitration DisputeSecurities ArbitrationBroker MisconductArbitrator RemovalPanel BiasVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardWaiver of ObjectionsCPLR Article 75Federal Arbitration Act
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 10,494 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