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

Farrell v. Dolce

John P. Farrell, a former City of White Plains firefighter, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the termination of his General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) benefits. Farrell, who retired due to a line-of-duty injury, had voluntarily opted for Retirement and Social Security Law § 384-d benefits, which include mandatory retirement at age 62. The City of White Plains subsequently ceased his supplemental payments on his 62nd birthday, citing General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Farrell argued that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) preempted the age-based termination and that he was denied due process because the benefit was terminated without a hearing. The court, presided over by Justice John R. LaCava, found that Farrell’s section 207-a (2) benefits fell under the 'continued benefit payments' exception of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), making the ADEA inapplicable. The court concluded that the respondents' determination to terminate benefits was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and that Farrell was not denied due process given the legal basis of the decision. Therefore, Farrell's petition was denied.

CPLR Article 78General Municipal Law § 207-aAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)Disability BenefitsFirefighter BenefitsMandatory Retirement AgeDue ProcessStatutory InterpretationPublic Safety
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2000

Farrell v. Child Welfare Administration

Plaintiff Janet Farrell, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit against the New York City Child Welfare Administration (CWA), alleging wrongful termination based on national origin in violation of Title VII and other civil rights statutes. Farrell claimed she was fired from her caseworker position in 1995 after failing a training program and receiving a low exam score. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found no evidence of national origin discrimination, concluding she was terminated due to her failure to complete requisite training. CWA moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court granted, dismissing the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The Court allowed Farrell to file an amended complaint by January 20, 2000, to provide more specific factual allegations to support her claims.

Employment discriminationTitle VIINational origin discriminationPro se litigantRule 12(c) motionJudgment on the pleadingsFailure to state a claimMunicipal liabilityCivil Rights ActNew York Executive Law
References
33
Case No. 900983-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Building Exterior Servs. Trust of N.Y. v. A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc.

Plaintiff Building Exterior Services Trust of New York (BEST), a group self-insurance trust, initiated an action against former members, including A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., for unpaid monetary assessments levied in 2013 and 2014 to address a shortfall. Defendant A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint and a cross-claim, arguing that it ceased membership in 1994, was not bound by the 2000 Trust Documents, and that assessments could only be levied against current members, with any authority expiring in 2003. The Supreme Court, Albany County, denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the Trust Documents, specifically Section 4.8 of the Indemnity Agreement and Section 10.4 of the Declaration of Trust, could authorize assessments against former members for periods of participation. The court also rejected the statute-of-limitations defense, concluding that the breach-of-contract claim accrued when the defendant refused to pay the assessments.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insurance TrustUnpaid AssessmentsMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeclaration of TrustIndemnity AgreementFormer MembersTrust Solvency
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clemente v. Farrell Lines Inc.

The plaintiff, a cargo lasher, brought an action against Farrell Lines Incorporated, the owner of the SS African Comet, and Universal Maritime Services, Inc., an independent stevedore, for injuries sustained while working on the vessel. Farrell removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., arguing that under the 1972 amendments to the LHWCA, there was no evidence of negligence by the vessel owner. The plaintiff alleged insufficient lighting and an overcrowded hatch contributed to his injury. The court granted Farrell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the accident was solely caused by a fellow longshoreman operating a hilo machine, and that the vessel owner did not have a duty to supervise the stevedore's operations.

Summary JudgmentLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActVessel NegligenceStevedore OperationsCargo LashingHilo Machine AccidentDuty to Provide Safe WorkplaceIndependent Contractor LiabilityFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Maritime Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Farrell

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal in a legal malpractice action. Defendant James P. Farrell, Jr., a lawyer, represented Six G’s Contracting Corp. in a personal injury action. Farrell failed to timely notify the State Insurance Fund (SIF) of a third-party action against Six G’s, leading SIF to disclaim coverage. Six G’s assigned its malpractice claim to Joseph Gazza and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court denied Farrell’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court’s order, concluding that the complaint sufficiently stated elements of legal malpractice and that the issue of SIF's waiver of disclaimer was a question of fact, not determinable as a matter of law.

Legal MalpracticeProfessional NegligenceInsurance DisclaimerSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAssignment of ClaimWorkers' CompensationIndemnificationAppellate ReviewCausation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McIntyre v. Farrell Lines

Plaintiff Donald McIntyre, a timekeeper for Howland Hook Marine Terminal Corporation (Howland), sustained injuries at a terminal and received compensation from Howland under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). He subsequently sued Farrell Lines and United States Lines for negligent premises maintenance, who then impleaded Staten Island Window Cleaning Co., Inc. (Staten Island) for contractual obligations. Staten Island, in turn, impleaded Howland, claiming contractual indemnity and asserting that McIntyre was not a covered employee under the LHWCA, thus challenging Howland's immunity from further liability. The court found that McIntyre, as a purely clerical employee who did not handle cargo, did not meet the LHWCA's situs and status test for coverage under 33 U.S.C. § 903(a). Consequently, Howland's compensation payments did not bar Staten Island’s complaint, and Howland’s motion to dismiss the fourth-party complaint was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActLHWCA coverageClerical employee statusMaritime activitySitus and status testEmployer immunityFourth-party complaintMotion to dismissIndemnityPersonal injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrell v. Dick Enterprises, Inc.

Dana Farrell, a correction officer, was injured after stepping into a hole dug during security fence installation at the Mid-State Correctional Facility. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment to the defendant on the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action and granted a cross-motion to amend the complaint. However, the appellate court determined that plaintiff was not a worker employed in construction or lawfully frequenting the premises as defined by Labor Law § 241 (6) and related Industrial Code provisions. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order, granted the motions for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint, and denied the cross-motion to amend the complaint.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentCorrection OfficerPremises LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ3970710
Regular
Oct 15, 2008

ARTHUR FERREL vs. VASKO ELECTRIC, EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision concerning Arthur Ferrel's claim. The Board amended the original findings to specifically order the defendant to pay a lien to Farrell, Fraulob & Brown. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and decisions regarding the lien claims of Dr. Duhan and Adelberg Associates Medical Group.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactLienTrial LevelDr. DuhanAdelberg Associates Medical GroupVasko ElectricExplorer Insurance CompanyArthur Ferrel
References
0
Case No. SAC 289384
Regular
Apr 04, 2008

NICK MILIVOJEVICH vs. UNITED AIRLINES

This case involves a clerical error in a prior award of attorney's fees for applicant Nick Milivojevich against United Airlines. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board corrected the award to reflect the correct appellate attorney's fees of $\$ 6,050.00$ and disallowed costs, maintaining its continuing jurisdiction to rectify such errors. The corrected award is payable to Farrell, Fraulob & Brown, A Professional Corporation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorOpinion and AwardAttorney's FeesAppellate Attorney's FeesCostsContinuing JurisdictionToccalinoMorganUnited Airlines
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isaacson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

The plaintiff, an attorney, is seeking a fee from a compensation lien recovered by the defendant insurance carrier. The plaintiff represented Isaac Perrero, who was injured while working for Farrell Lines, Inc., and received disability and medical compensation from the defendant. Perrero's action against Farrell Lines, Inc. settled, and the defendant's compensation lien was satisfied. The plaintiff claims entitlement to a portion of the lien for legal services rendered, arguing the case falls under New York's workers' compensation laws and misinterpreting a footnote in *Bloomer v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.* The defendant countered that the underlying action was governed by federal maritime law, making *Bloomer v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.* applicable, which precludes such attorney's fees when settlement funds are sufficient. The court agreed with the defendant, ruling that federal maritime law governs the action, even in a state forum, and that *Bloomer* prohibits reducing a stevedore's lien for legal expenses. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Attorney's FeesCompensation LienLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActFederal Maritime LawState vs Federal JurisdictionSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationCommon Fund DoctrineEquitable PrinciplesSettlement Funds
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 22 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