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

L. B. Smith, Inc. v. Circle Air Freight Corp.

Defendant and third-party plaintiff Circle Air Freight Corp. moved to dismiss two affirmative defenses raised by third-party defendant Iberia Air Lines of Spain. The court denied the motion to strike the first affirmative defense, 'failure to state a cause of action,' as it is not subject to such a motion. Regarding the second affirmative defense, which asserted that the action was time-barred by the two-year period in Warsaw Convention article 29, Circle argued this period was inapplicable to contribution claims. However, the court ruled that Warsaw Convention article 29 constitutes an absolute condition precedent to suit, not merely a statute of limitations, and its two-year period applies broadly to all actions for damages, including those for contribution, overriding conflicting State laws. Consequently, Circle's motion to strike Iberia's second affirmative defense was also denied.

Warsaw ConventionContributionStatute of LimitationsCondition PrecedentAir Carrier LiabilityThird-Party ActionAffirmative DefenseDismissal MotionFederal SupremacyTreaty Interpretation
References
9
Case No. ADJ7375307
Regular
Dec 06, 2016

REYNA VALDEZ vs. FULL CIRCLE DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the lower court's decision denying a lien claimant's claim for photocopy services. The Board found insufficient evidence to determine if a "contested claim" existed at the time the services were rendered, which is a prerequisite for reimbursement of medical-legal expenses. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision on the existence of a contested claim. The Board clarified that obtaining records via subpoena is permissible and that photocopy fees are considered recoverable medical-legal expenses if a contested claim is established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReyna ValdezFull Circle DairyZenith Insurance CompanyADJ7375307Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationMed Legal Photocopylien claimantFindings and Ordercontested claim
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forshay v. Star Dairy, Inc.

Plaintiff James M. Forshay was injured in a vehicle accident while riding with defendant Harry J. Huffman. At the time of the accident, both Forshay and Huffman were employed by Mountain Dairies, Inc. Forshay initiated a lawsuit, but defendants argued that the action was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) due to the co-employee status of Forshay and Huffman. The Supreme Court granted defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and denied Forshay's subsequent motion for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the orders, concluding that defendants provided sufficient proof of co-employment and that the plaintiff failed to diligently pursue discovery to refute this claim.

Workers' CompensationCo-employeeSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseDiscoveryAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryVehicle AccidentNew York LawLitigation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Globe Insurance v. Chock Full O'Nuts Corp.

Plaintiff, an insurer named Royal, sued its insured, Chock Full O'Nuts Corporation, for unpaid insurance premiums and service charges. Chock counterclaimed, alleging unfair claim settlement practices under Insurance Law § 40-d, breach of contractual and fiduciary duties, and sought punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The Special Term dismissed the fourth counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the counterclaim for punitive damages, holding that Insurance Law § 40-d does not create a private right of action for punitive damages, and such damages require a showing of morally culpable and wanton dishonesty beyond mere breach of contract or negligence. The court also found attorneys' fees were not recoverable. The lower court's order was modified to remove the option for Chock to replead the punitive damages counterclaim.

Punitive DamagesInsurance Law § 40-dBreach of ContractUnfair Claims PracticesPrivate Right of ActionAppellate ReviewCounterclaim DismissalFiduciary DutyNegligenceAttorneys' Fees
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dittert v. Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc.

Plaintiffs Jason Dittert, Anthony Lombardo, and Walter J. Finn sued Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc., for personal injuries sustained during armed robberies while employed by Dairy Barn Stores, Inc. An earlier action against Dairy Barn was dismissed due to Workers' Compensation being the exclusive remedy. Plaintiffs argued Oak Tree was the 'alter ego' of Dairy Barn or a 'joint venturer,' but this claim was also barred by Workers' Compensation Law. On appeal, plaintiffs contended a Dairy Barn District Supervisor, allegedly an Oak Tree employee, breached a duty by failing to order a store closure after a robbery warning. The court determined the supervisor was a co-employee, rendering the action barred by Workers' Compensation Law, and found no proximate cause for the injuries. Consequently, Oak Tree's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against it was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineVicarious LiabilityCo-employee DefenseProximate CauseAppellate ProcedureComplaint DismissalEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04380 [230 AD3d 1122]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2024

Injai v. Circle F 2243 Jackson (DE), LLC

The plaintiff, Ronny Injai, allegedly sustained personal injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder at a construction site in February 2019. He was performing work on property owned by Circle F 2243 Jackson (DE), LLC, where Zhong Wang Construction Services, Inc., served as the general contractor. Injai commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). He sought summary judgment on the issue of liability for the Labor Law claims. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiff's motion, citing triable issues of fact regarding the accident's occurrence and the ladder's security. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the plaintiff's submissions failed to conclusively eliminate all triable issues of fact.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafety DevicesProximate CauseTriable Issues of FactContractor Liability
References
14
Case No. 96 Civ. 4126
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2003

Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd.

Plaintiffs Foundation for A Course in Miracles (FACIM) and Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP) sued New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd. (NCCFE) and Endeavor Academy for copyright infringement of 'A Course in Miracles.' The central issue was whether the work entered the public domain due to extensive pre-publication distribution without copyright notice. The court found that hundreds of uncopyrighted copies were distributed without sufficient limitations on who received them or how they could be used. Consequently, the court concluded that the work was generally published before its official copyright registration, rendering the copyright invalid. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants, dismissing the copyright.

Copyright LawPublic DomainPre-publication DistributionCopyright InfringementIntellectual PropertyReligious TextsSpiritual TeachingsManuscript DistributionLiterary WorkLicensing Agreement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Broomfield v. Roosevelt Hotel Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying the employer’s request for full Board review. The employer had repeatedly failed to appear at hearings regarding a discrimination complaint filed by the claimant, leading the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) to find discrimination. The employer’s subsequent untimely appeal to a Board panel was denied for lack of good cause. The employer then sought full Board review, which was also denied. The court affirmed the denial of full Board review, finding no abuse of discretion by the Board panel, as their decision was unanimous and based on a full consideration of the matter.

DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation BoardUntimely AppealFull Board ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAdjournmentsFailure to AppearJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Furlong v. Circle Line Statue of Liberty Ferry, Inc.

In this Jones Act case, plaintiff Michael Furlong, Jr. sought recovery for injuries to his right hand. The defendant, Circle Line Statue of Liberty Ferry, Inc., filed several motions. The court denied Circle Line's motion to call an expert economist due to untimely disclosure. It partially granted the motion to call a fact witness, but restricted his testimony. A motion to add medical records and witness testimony regarding Furlong's alleged drug use was mostly denied due to authenticity concerns, though conditional admission was allowed for damages assessment. Finally, Circle Line's motion for a third independent medical examination of Furlong was denied for lack of good cause.

Jones ActExpert WitnessDiscoveryMedical ExaminationPretrial OrderDrug TestDamagesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureWitness TestimonyAuthenticity
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernbach v. Raz Dairy, Inc.

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Karen P. Fernbach, initiated this action against Raz Dairy, Inc. and Metro Dairy Corp. for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition alleged that the employers engaged in unfair labor practices, including unlawful interrogations, threats of plant closure and discharge, and the termination of employee Luis Munoz for his union activities. The court found reasonable cause to believe the respondent had committed these practices, noting evidence of anti-union animus, disparate treatment, and pretextual reasons for Mr. Munoz's dismissal. Concluding that immediate injunctive relief was just and proper to prevent irreparable harm to employees' Section 7 rights and restore the pre-violation status quo, the court granted the petition.

Labour LawUnfair Labor PracticesNLRA Section 10(j)Temporary InjunctionEmployee RightsUnionizationCoercionInterrogationRetaliatory DischargeReinstatement
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 1,022 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