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. 2022-03-0580
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2023

Rash, Clayton v. Fine Line Transportation, LLC

Clayton Rash, a truck driver for Fine Line Transportation, suffered a broken left wrist at work. While undergoing physical therapy for his wrist, he sustained a left shoulder injury, which he attributed to exercises performed during therapy. Fine Line Transportation denied benefits for the shoulder injury, arguing against causation. The Court found Mr. Rash's testimony credible and, relying on the opinion of a panel-selected physician, Dr. Kenneth Grinspun, determined that the shoulder injury was a direct and natural consequence of his compensable wrist injury. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Rash medical treatment for his left shoulder, including recommended surgery, and ordered Fine Line Transportation to pay temporary partial disability benefits.

Shoulder InjuryWrist FracturePhysical Therapy InjuryRotator Cuff TearCausationDirect and Natural Consequence RuleTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Treatment AuthorizationExpedited HearingEmployer's Examination
References
2
Case No. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fine v. S.M.C. Microsystems Corp.

The dissenting opinion argues to affirm the Workers' Compensation Board's decision, asserting that the claimant, Seymour Fine, met the 'mixed purpose' test for work performed at home. The dissent highlights Fine's regular pattern of working at home, his supervisor's agreement regarding the benefit to the employer, and his dedicated workspace at home. It emphasizes that the accident occurred on a non-regular workday when Fine was carrying work-related materials to continue work at home after visiting his office, suggesting he was working against a deadline. The dissent also addresses the majority's focus on Fine not demanding extra pay, inferring that working at home compensated for his slow pace due to a physical disability, with his supervisor's permission.

Work from HomeSpecial Assignment RuleMixed Purpose TestCourse of EmploymentOff-Premises WorkCommute AccidentEmployer BenefitRegular Work PatternPhysical Disability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lenihan v. Boeing Co.

Karen A Lenihan, an employee of The Boeing Company, filed a lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination, including unequal pay, failure to promote, denial of overtime, and sexual harassment, alongside a breach of contract claim. The court granted Boeing's motion for summary judgment on the claims of failure to promote, failure to provide overtime, sexual harassment, and breach of contract, finding these either time-barred or lacking a prima facie case. However, the court denied summary judgment for Lenihan's claims of unequal pay under the Equal Pay Act and pay discrimination under Title VII, allowing these claims to proceed to trial due to outstanding issues of material fact.

Sexual DiscriminationGender DiscriminationEqual Pay ActTitle VIIWage DiscriminationFailure to PromoteSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentContinuing Violation
References
173
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd.

Ronald Borsack (also known as Ron Bell) filed a breach of contract action against Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd., Sevenarts, Ltd., Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, LLC, and David Rogath. The defendants removed the case from New York Supreme Court to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction and later jurisdiction under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards. Borsack claimed an oral agreement for a "finders fee" of five Erte artist proofs, which he alleged was memorialized in an addendum to a license agreement between Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts. The defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration as per the license agreement, while Borsack cross-moved to remand the case to state court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that diversity jurisdiction was absent as Borsack was domiciled in New York, the same as one of the defendants. However, the court determined it had federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act's Chapter 2, as the dispute involved an international commercial arbitration agreement. The court further concluded that Borsack, as an intended third-party beneficiary of the License Agreement and Addendum, was bound by its arbitration clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for a stay pending arbitration and denied Borsack's motion to remand.

Breach of ContractArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryConvention on Foreign Arbitral AwardsRemand MotionStay Pending ArbitrationContract Interpretation
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2009

Saunders v. City of New York

This collective action involves approximately 194 current and former municipal employees (Parent Coordinators and Parent Support Officers) who sued the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs alleged systematic violations of their overtime rights, including failure to pay time-and-a-half in cash, failure to pay for hours worked between 35 and 40, and wrongful conversion of compensatory time. They also sought equitable tolling of the statute of limitations due to defendants' failure to post required notices. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment regarding the unlawful provision of compensatory time in lieu of cash for overtime, as the collective bargaining agreement was silent on this matter. However, plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment on straight-time compensation and willfulness were denied. While defendants' overall motion for summary judgment was denied, the court *sua sponte* granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the 'failure to pay claim'.

FLSAOvertime CompensationCompensatory TimeCollective ActionSummary JudgmentEquitable TollingWillful ViolationPublic EmployeesLabor LawNew York City Department of Education
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lanaya B.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed a neglect petition against Cala B., mother of Lanaya, diagnosed with failure to thrive. The court ordered Lanaya's placement with a maternal uncle on May 19, 2009, and reiterated on May 26, 2009, but ACS failed to comply, keeping the infant in a nonkinship foster home until May 27, 2009. The respondent mother filed a motion for civil contempt against ACS and JCCA. The court found ACS in civil contempt for its undisputed failure to comply with court orders, which restricted the mother's liberal visitation and bonding time with her infant daughter. The court determined that the mother and child suffered actual harm due to this non-compliance, and ordered ACS to pay a fine of $2,250 plus costs and expenses to the respondent.

Civil ContemptChild NeglectFoster Care PlacementKinship CareFamily Court ActDue ProcessVisitation RightsParental RightsFailure to ThriveJudicial Discretion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1990

United States v. County of Nassau

The case involves the United States and the State of New York (Regulators) moving to hold the County of Nassau and its Department of Public Works (Nassau) in contempt of a Consent Decree or to modify it, due to Nassau's failure to comply with sludge management milestones. Nassau cross-moved to compel payment from a trust account. The court found Nassau in violation of the Decree's provisions but denied the contempt motion because Nassau was paying stipulated penalties. The court also denied the Regulators' motion to modify the Decree by increasing penalties, citing that the existing penalties were agreed upon and additional fines would be punitive against taxpayers. Finally, the court denied Nassau's cross-motion for trust fund disbursement, supporting EPA's decision to withhold funds until Nassau complies with the Decree's construction requirements. The court affirmed that Nassau must pay stipulated penalties for the first day of non-compliance.

Environmental LawConsent DecreeSewage Sludge ManagementOcean Dumping Ban ActStipulated PenaltiesCivil ContemptContract InterpretationMunicipal LawTrust FundsEPA Enforcement
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Manlapaz

Plaintiff Adriane Padilla sued Santiago Manlapaz, Lilia Reyes, Visayas Corporation, Baguio Corporation, and Melpito Corporation (owners/operators of Barrio Fiesta restaurant) for violations of New York Labor Laws. These violations included failure to pay minimum wage, overtime, spread of hours compensation, and illegal wage deductions. Plaintiff worked as a waitress from 2003-2006, often earning below the state minimum wage, and wages were unlawfully withheld for fines. The court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, finding the defendants' actions willful due to their disregard for legal wage requirements and failure to maintain adequate records. Consequently, plaintiff was awarded a total of $24,714.50, comprising lost wages, liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest. Defendants Manlapaz and Reyes were also found to be individually liable as 'employers' under the New York Labor Law.

Wage and Hour DisputeMinimum Wage ViolationOvertime PaySpread of Hours CompensationIllegal Wage DeductionSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawEmployer LiabilityWillful ViolationLiquidated Damages
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salamea v. MacY's East, Inc.

Magaly Salamea, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Macy’s East, Inc., Federated Department Stores, Inc., and Fausto Friele, alleging negligence, failure to pay accrued vacation pay under New York State Labor Law § 198, and prima facie tort. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court denied Salamea's motion to remand, ruling that her state law claims for negligence and unpaid vacation pay were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, as their resolution required interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the preempted claims (Counts One and Three) for Salamea's failure to exhaust remedies under the CBA, and dismissing the remaining state law claims (Counts Two and Four) without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Labor Management Relations ActFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementNegligence ClaimUnpaid Vacation PayMotion to RemandMotion to DismissSupplemental JurisdictionExhaustion of RemediesEmployment At Will
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 6,869 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