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

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1992

Theresa M. C. v. Utilities Mutual Insurance

The case involves an appeal by Utilities Mutual Insurance Company regarding an order from the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County. This order had extinguished the company's Workers’ Compensation lien and mandated a payment of $74,700 for legal fees related to a third-party action settlement. The third-party recovery stemmed from a legal malpractice action concerning the estate of Frederic C., whose widow received workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court found that the Surrogate's Court erred by failing to discount the total estimated future Workers' Compensation benefits to their present value when calculating the deficiency and the carrier's equitable share of legal expenses. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Surrogate's Court to determine the present value of future benefits using specified Workers' Compensation Law provisions and actuarial tables.

Workers' Compensation LienThird-Party ActionLegal MalpracticeSettlement ApportionmentLegal FeesPresent Value CalculationFuture BenefitsSurrogate's CourtAppellate ReversalRemittal
References
4
Case No. ADJ15136580
Regular
May 09, 2025

Neal Newton vs. Rudgear Logistics, LLC.; Falls Lake Fire & Casualty

Applicant Neal Newton filed a petition to disqualify the trial Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ), alleging bias and the expression of unqualified opinions during hearings. The applicant contended the WCJ belittled his personal physician, questioned his intelligence, and demonstrated bias against his video evidence. Despite the WCJ denying actual bias, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found an 'appearance of bias' sufficient to warrant disqualification, particularly noting the WCJ's characterization of applicant's documents without full review. Consequently, the Board granted the petition, disqualified the assigned WCJ, and ordered the case reassigned to a new WCJ.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAppearance of BiasMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedQualified Medical EvaluatorEvidence DisputeMed-Legal EvaluationCode of Civil Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2009

Shaw v. RPA Associates, LLC

Frederic E Shaw, an employee of Rockbusters, sustained injuries at a construction site when a dump truck he was operating capsized. He and his wife commenced an action seeking damages for personal injuries, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against RPA Associates, LLC, AVR Realty, and Patriot Ridge Development, LLC. Patriot Ridge, the owner and developer, also brought a third-party action against Rockbusters for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment, dismissing both the complaint and the third-party complaint. On appeal, the court dismissed portions of the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the parties were not aggrieved, and affirmed the judgment insofar as reviewed, thereby upholding the dismissal of the claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentDump Truck AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law ViolationsCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party ActionIndemnification ClaimAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2002

Jaycox v. Hardesty

Plaintiff Newton S. Jaycox rear-ended a stopped garbage truck operated by defendant Robert L. Hardesty and owned by Hardesty & Sons Sanitation, Inc. Plaintiff, along with his wife derivatively, commenced an action seeking damages for sustained injuries. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff's own negligence caused the collision. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order, stating that the plaintiffs failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision, as plaintiff admitted to looking in his side-view mirror instead of at the road prior to impact. The court also found the defendants' assertions regarding the truck's illuminated lights to be credible.

auto accidentrear-end collisionsummary judgmentnegligenceVehicle and Traffic Lawappellate reviewdriver dutycontributory negligencevisibilityfactual dispute
References
7
Case No. ADJ10235953
Regular
Jan 17, 2017

MANUELA HOWARD vs. VXI GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration and request for a stay of order. The defendant argued that applicant's attorney failed to properly serve medical reports, that penalties and attorney fees were improperly awarded in an expedited hearing, and that Dr. Newton's report should have barred the award of temporary disability. The Board found that the medical reports were properly served on the defendant and its adjustor, that penalties and fees were correctly awarded as they stemmed from the applicant's entitlement to temporary disability, and that Dr. Newton's report actually supported the award given the defendant's failure to offer modified duties. Finally, the Board admonished applicant's counsel for attaching previously filed documents but declined to impose sanctions.

Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Denying PetitionTemporary Total DisabilityLate Penalty FeeLabor Code Section 4650(d)Attorney's FeesExpedited HearingLabor Code Section 5502WCAB Rule 10608Primary Treating Physician
References
4
Case No. 529776
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Page v. Liberty Cent. Sch. Dist.

Angela Page, who received workers' compensation for occupational mold exposure and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), sought benefits for a consequential psychological injury. Following a 2012 Board decision that she had no further causally-related physical disability, a WCLJ and the Board later precluded her psychiatrist's (Dr. Newton) reports and testimony regarding her adjustment disorder, citing noncompliance with IME regulations. They also found no compensable lost time. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling the employer's objection to Dr. Newton's evidence was untimely. It further found the Board's conclusion of no disability was not supported by substantial evidence, given that both claimant's and the employer's psychiatrists agreed on the psychological diagnosis, differing only on the degree of disability. The case was remitted for further proceedings.

Occupational ExposureToxic MoldHypersensitivity ReactionMultiple Chemical SensitivityConsequential Psychological InjuryAdjustment DisorderPsychiatric DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationEvidence PreclusionTimeliness of Objection
References
6
Case No. ADJ4364152
Regular
Oct 14, 2008

PATRICIA A. NEWTON vs. SBC PACIFIC BELL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior July 30, 2008 Joint Findings and Order because the applicant's attorney informed the Board that the case was being settled. The case is remanded to the trial level, where the WCJ will either re-issue the original decision if settlement is not finalized within 30 days, or proceed with settlement approval or other appropriate action if settlement papers are timely filed. This order allows the parties to finalize their settlement while preserving their rights.

ReconsiderationRescinded OrderRemandedTrial LevelSettlementTentative SettlementWCJJoint Findings and OrderFinalized SettlementAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Newton v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying benefits to a claimant who experienced knee pain during employment. The Board had reversed a WCLJ’s decision, finding no accidental injury or occupational disease causally related to work, crediting medical opinions that found no causal link between the claimant's osteoarthritis and meniscus tear and his work duties. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseCausal RelationshipMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceKnee InjuryOsteoarthritisMeniscus TearEmployment-related Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Criminal Bar Ass'n v. Newton

Plaintiffs, including Coastal Oil New York, Inc. and two criminal defense bar associations, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three New York State Justices, alleging that the New York County District Attorney illicitly influenced the assignment of judges to "high-profile" criminal cases, thereby violating their due process rights. The alleged scheme involved the D.A. selecting "pro-prosecution" judges for initial ex parte orders, then recommending them for grand jury duties and subsequent trials. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing mootness and lack of standing. The District Court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Coastal Oil's claim was moot because the challenged judge had recused himself, and the remaining bar associations and individual plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not suffered a concrete injury. Consequently, the amended complaint was dismissed.

Due ProcessJudicial AssignmentCriminal ProcedureStandingMootnessFederal Question Jurisdiction42 U.S.C. Section 1983District AttorneyJudicial Bias AllegationsRecusal
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 19 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