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

Harvey v. Marlene Industries Corp.

The National Labor Relations Board, through its Acting Regional Director William K. Harvey, sought an injunction under NLRA Section 10(j) to prevent Marlene Industries Corporation from distributing proceeds from an asset sale. This was in anticipation of a final Board decision on unfair labor practice charges, which an Administrative Law Judge had found against Marlene. The long-standing labor dispute originated in 1970 with employee discharges and subsequent picketing. The court, however, denied the injunction, concluding that there was no demonstrated danger of irreparable harm. Furthermore, the court found that the core issues had been previously addressed and resolved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1975, ruling that Marlene's actions in 1970 were not unlawful, and thus, extraordinary relief was unwarranted.

Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticesNational Labor Relations ActAsset SaleRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSixth Circuit Court of AppealsBack Pay ClaimsIrreparable HarmSection 10(j)
References
5
Case No. Docket Entry No. 102
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2011

Beautybank, Inc. v. Harvey Prince LLP

Plaintiff BeautyBank Inc. sought to hold Kumar Ramani in contempt for breaching a permanent injunction issued on October 12, 2010, against Harvey Prince LLP. BeautyBank alleged that Ramani, as a principal of Harvey Prince LLP, continued to sell infringing products. Ramani argued that Harvey Prince LLP did not legally exist and therefore he could not be held in contempt. The court found that BeautyBank failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of Harvey Prince LLP's existence as a legal entity. Furthermore, the court determined that judicial estoppel should not apply because BeautyBank did not suffer unfair detriment, and Ramani did not gain an unfair advantage from his prior inconsistent statements to the USPTO. Consequently, the motion for contempt was denied as Ramani could not be subject to an injunction against a non-existent entity.

Trademark InfringementContempt MotionPermanent InjunctionDefault JudgmentJudicial EstoppelNon-Existent EntityUSPTO FilingsNevada LawIntellectual PropertyEAU FLIRT
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Scott v. Manzi Taxi & Transportation Co.

In March 1986, claimant Harvey, a cab driver, was involved in an accident while driving a taxi owned by Manzi Taxi & Transportation Company. He filed for workers' compensation, initially listing Frank Manzi as his employer, but Manzi controverted the claim. Harvey then claimed City Dispatch Service, Inc. (CDS) was his employer. The Workers' Compensation Board found Harvey was an employee of CDS due to the control CDS exerted over his work, including dictating hours and prohibiting refusal of jobs. CDS appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the employment relationship and rejecting CDS's due process claims. The decision was based on the testimony of Harvey and Manzi.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipCab DriverIndependent ContractorDue ProcessAdministrative DeterminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceEmployer LiabilityTaxi Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harvey v. Mazal American Partners

Plaintiff Bernard Harvey sustained severe injuries from a fall at a construction site, leading to a lawsuit against Assay Partners and HRH Construction under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6). The case involved complex issues of liability apportionment among various contractors and subcontractors, and a substantial damages award which was subsequently reduced. The appellate court reviewed several procedural and substantive issues, including the propriety of allowing the injured plaintiff to appear unsworn as demonstrative evidence and the denial of access to matrimonial files. Ultimately, the court modified one judgment regarding individual partners not served with process, and affirmed other aspects of the trial court's decision, including the apportionment of liability and the denial of indemnification claims.

Construction AccidentLabor Law ViolationPersonal Injury DamagesApportionment of LiabilityIndemnification ClauseDemonstrative EvidenceUnsworn WitnessLoss of ConsortiumSummary Judgment AppealTrial Procedure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Christian

District Judge Vitaliano denied motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial from defendants Harvey Christian, Anthony Christian, and Jason Quinn, who were convicted of racketeering, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses. The defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly concerning enterprise membership and individual involvement, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during trial. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding sufficient evidence supported the "Park Hill Enterprise" and the defendants' participation in racketeering acts. It also rejected claims of prosecutorial impropriety and denied a request for a Kastigar hearing, concluding no new trial was warranted.

RacketeeringDrug TraffickingFirearms OffensesMurder in Aid of RacketeeringConspiracyJudgment of AcquittalNew Trial MotionRule 29Rule 33Sufficiency of Evidence
References
40
Case No. ADJ17547374
Regular
Oct 16, 2025

WARREN P. HARVEY vs. SOCAL MACHINE, INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered applicant Warren P. Harvey's petition for reconsideration regarding the equitable hourly reimbursement rates for in-home health care provided by his spouse, asserting errors in the WCJ's rate calculation and attorneys' fees. After an unsuccessful settlement conference, the parties filed Stipulations With Request for Award, agreeing to permanent total disability and further medical treatment for the applicant, though these stipulations did not resolve the reconsideration issues. The Board approved these stipulations, finding them adequate and in the applicant's best interest, and issued an award based upon them, which included specific disability indemnity, medical treatment, and attorney's fees. The Board also commended the parties for resolving some important issues and urged them to continue efforts on the remaining disputes.

Equitable hourly reimbursement ratesIn-home health careCaregiver dutiesNursing dutiesCommunity HHC providerPetition for reconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardPermanent total disabilityTemporary disability indemnityAttorneys' fee
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dougherty v. State

Judge Harvey dissents, believing Labor Law § 240 (1) has a more limited application. The judge argues that liability under this section requires a fall from an elevated height, citing precedent from the Fourth and Second Departments. Judge Harvey concludes that the claimant in this case had not yet acquired the status of an employee working at an elevated height, and thus no liability exists under Labor Law § 240 (1) as the risk was not different from those at ground level. The opinion further states that defective or inadequate equipment was not the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law § 240(1)Elevated HeightFall RiskConstruction LawLiabilityStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionProximate CauseEmployee Status
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cast v. City of Gloversville Water Department

Judge Harvey dissents from the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, which found that the decedent’s death did not arise out of his employment. Harvey, J., argues for a liberal construction of the Workers’ Compensation Law in favor of the claimant. The dissenting opinion asserts that the evidence supports the decedent, a caretaker, being on duty whenever on the premises, performing tasks like cutting firewood for heating, which benefited the self-insured employer, the City of Gloversville Water Department. Citing precedents, the dissent further contends that even if the woodcutting was unauthorized, it should not negate compensability. Therefore, the judge concludes that the Board's decision should be reversed, and benefits awarded to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationDissentEmployment ScopeLiberal ConstructionUnauthorized ActPersonal UseEmployer BenefitCaretaker DutiesSelf-Insured EmployerDeath Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc.

This Memorandum Decision addresses the motion of Joseph Hardy and Harvey Sherrod (Applicants) to intervene in an action following the death of the original plaintiff, Harry Diduck. The Applicants, members and beneficiaries of the House Wreckers Union Local 95 and its associated Insurance and Pension Funds, sought to continue litigation against the Trump Defendants and the Estate of John Senyshyn to recover allegedly due contributions to the Union Funds. Presiding Judge Stewart of the Southern District of New York granted the motion, finding that the Applicants satisfied the requirements for intervention both as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) and by permission under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2). The court ruled that the Applicants had a direct and significant interest in the action that was not adequately protected, and were qualified to represent the class. Consequently, the previous stay of proceedings was lifted, and the case caption was ordered to be amended to reflect Joseph Hardy and Harvey Sherrod as the new plaintiffs.

InterventionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24Class ActionDerivative ActionAdequacy of RepresentationUnion FundsPension FundsTrust FundsMootnessStare Decisis
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Harvey U.

This case concerns a 36-year-old male respondent suffering from gangrene of both feet due to severe frostbite. The petitioner hospital sought judicial authorization to perform amputations after the respondent, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, refused consent. The Supreme Court found the respondent mentally incompetent to make an informed decision and granted the hospital's application. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence of the respondent's incompetence. The court also addressed evidentiary issues regarding the admissibility of hospital records and the consistency of psychiatric testimony.

Medical ConsentIncompetenceParanoid SchizophreniaAmputationFrostbitePatient RightsJudicial AuthorizationMedical Treatment RefusalPsychiatric EvaluationBusiness Records Rule
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 28 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