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. 2016 NY Slip Op 04692 [140 AD3d 922]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2016

Franklin v. Hafftka

Cynthia Franklin, acting as special guardian for George S. Franklin, commenced an action against Michael and Yonat Hafftka, asserting claims including breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty related to a joint residential property purchase and shared living arrangement. George S. Franklin, who had a history of mental illness, had entered into this agreement with the Hafftka defendants. The defendants sought to dismiss several causes of action as time-barred or for failing to state a cause of action, while the plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend certain claims. The Supreme Court initially granted the dismissal of some causes of action and denied the cross-motion to amend. The Appellate Division modified this order, ruling that the defendants' motion to dismiss the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixteenth causes of action, and parts of the sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action as time-barred, should have been denied due to a question of fact regarding the application of fiduciary tolling or the "repudiation rule." The court affirmed the dismissal of the ninth cause of action for promissory estoppel and the eleventh for a purchase money resulting trust. Additionally, the Appellate Division granted the plaintiff leave to amend the fifth cause of action but denied amendment for the sixth and seventh causes of action.

Breach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyAiding and AbettingStatute of LimitationsFiduciary Tolling RuleRepudiation RulePromissory EstoppelPurchase Money Resulting TrustMotion to DismissLeave to Amend
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Oliver Schools, Inc.

The Attorney-General initiated an action to dissolve Oliver Schools, Inc. (OSI) due to its persistent and illegal failure to refund student loans to institutional lenders under the Guaranteed Student Loan program, resulting in substantial arrearages. OSI appealed the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment for dissolution, contending that dissolution was unwarranted without a jury trial and that its due process rights were violated. The Appellate Court affirmed the dissolution, concluding that OSI's conduct constituted a grave and continuing abuse of corporate power that harmed the public welfare. The court found no contested material facts that would necessitate a jury trial and determined that OSI was afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard, thus no due process violation occurred.

Corporate dissolutionBusiness Corporation LawStudent loan refundsConsumer fraudPersistent illegal conductAppellate reviewSummary judgmentDue processPublic welfare abuseHigher Education Services Corp. (HESC)
References
34
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08248 [167 AD3d 415]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2018

Barklee 94 LLC v. Oliver

Barklee 94 LLC appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, which dismissed their complaint against Augustus Oliver et al. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to reopen discovery. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding several causes of action time-barred, including those related to building code violations, notice of excavation, and a party wall easement. The court also dismissed a roof wire/trespass claim, noting the wire was installed by independent contractors. Additionally, a claim seeking completion of a decorative panel was barred by the doctrine of law of the case and the statute of limitations. The plaintiff's claim regarding elevator anchor bolts was also rejected due to insufficient evidence.

building code violationsstatute of limitationssummary judgmentindependent contractor liabilityparty wallencroachment claimappellate reviewproperty lawcivil procedureNew York County
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09275 [178 AD3d 1057]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2019

Oliver v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

The plaintiff, Constance Oliver, commenced a medical malpractice action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., alleging errors during a January 2014 surgery at Kings County Hospital Center and a subsequent failure to timely diagnose and treat an incisional hernia. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding the defendant's expert affirmation insufficient to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, particularly regarding the allegations of delayed diagnosis and treatment and speculative causation arguments.

Medical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentIncisional HerniaProximate CauseTimely DiagnosisAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyBurden of ProofHospital NegligenceKings County Hospital
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01501 [214 AD3d 857]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2023

Jin Kil Kim v. Franklin BH, LLC

The plaintiff, Jin Kil Kim, was injured by a falling bag of tile cement mix at a construction site in 2015 while working for World Hub Construction, Inc. He subsequently commenced an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) against Franklin BH, LLC, the building owner, and 100 Broad Street, LLC d/b/a Essen, the lessee. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, but the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied their motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, thereby leaving triable issues of fact regarding the accident's occurrence and its applicability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction AccidentFalling Object InjurySummary Judgment DenialPersonal InjuryElevation-Related RiskAbsolute LiabilityAppellate AffirmationTriable Issues of FactOwner Liability
References
7
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

Franklin v. Apfel

Roger R. Franklin appealed the denial of social security disability benefits by Commissioner Kenneth S. Apfel. Franklin claimed disability since January 1993 due to back problems, depression, anxiety, and stomach ulcers. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. District Judge Curtin reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the ALJ erred by downplaying non-exertional impairments and by relying on unreliable vocational expert testimony regarding job availability. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was granted, the defendant's denied, and the case was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the decision.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActALJ DecisionRemandResidual Functional CapacityNon-Exertional ImpairmentsVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceMedical-Vocational GuidelinesMental Impairment
References
17
Case No. ADJ9620902
Regular
Apr 05, 2019

ANGELA OLIVER vs. ROSS STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Angela Oliver's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order addressing only discovery issues. The WCAB also denied Oliver's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted by the Board. Therefore, the petitions seeking interlocutory review were dismissed and denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary RemedyWCJ DecisionDiscovery IssuesThreshold Issue
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saks v. Franklin Covey Co.

Rochelle Saks, an employee of Franklin Covey, sued her employer and its health benefits plan administrator for denying coverage for surgical impregnation procedures for her infertility treatment. Saks claimed the denial violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and the New York Human Rights Law, also alleging breach of contract. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Saks' complaint. The court found that Franklin Covey's insurance plan, which applied equally to all employees and excluded specific procedures including surgical impregnation, did not violate the ADA or Title VII. Furthermore, while infertility could be considered a pregnancy-related condition under the PDA, the plan's uniform exclusions still did not constitute discrimination. Finally, Saks' state law claims were preempted by ERISA.

Infertility TreatmentHealth Benefits PlanEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationERISA PreemptionSummary JudgmentSelf-funded InsuranceSurgical Procedures ExclusionMedical Necessity Definition
References
24
Case No. ADJ9088316
Regular
Sep 20, 2022

FRANKLIN OLIVER vs. TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, ESIS

This case involves a former professional athlete claiming permanent total disability due to a progressive brain injury. The Appeals Board affirmed a 98% permanent disability award but will reserve jurisdiction for future reassessment due to the insidious and progressive nature of the applicant's condition, as per the *Jackson* doctrine. The Board rejected the claim for conclusive presumption of permanent total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4), finding insufficient evidence of permanent mental incapacity based on medical opinions. Further, temporary disability benefits were denied as the applicant was employed post-football career until retirement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFranklin OliverTampa Bay BuccaneersESISAdjudication Number ADJ9088316ReconsiderationFindings and AwardProfessional AthleteOccupational Group 590California Subject Matter Jurisdiction
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 105 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