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
May 20, 1999

McLaughlin v. North Colonie Central School District

Petitioner, an employee injured in July 1998 while working on a construction project owned by the respondent, moved in March 1999 to serve a late notice of claim, significantly past the 90-day statutory period. The Supreme Court denied this application. On appeal, the petitioner argued that his delay should be excused due to his unawareness of the severity of his injuries and the respondent's timely knowledge of the incident. However, the Appellate Division found no supporting affidavit from the petitioner or medical evidence, thus dismissing the excuse offered by counsel. The court also rejected the argument that the general contractor's knowledge could be imputed to the respondent, citing a lack of evidence of actual timely knowledge. Consequently, the Supreme Court's denial of the motion was affirmed, as there was no viable excuse for the delay or proof of the respondent's timely actual knowledge.

Late notice of claimmunicipal liabilityconstruction site accidentactual knowledgeimputed knowledgejudicial discretionworkers' compensation claimpersonal injuryappealprocedural law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1988

Billsborrow v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A.

This opinion addresses motions for summary judgment by Dow Chemical, U.S.A., and Pride Solvent Chemical Company, Inc., in a negligence and strict products liability action. Plaintiff Nancy Ann Billsborrow, as administratrix, sued after her husband, Christopher Billsborrow, died from exposure to Neu-Tri solvent. Defendants argued they fulfilled their duty to warn through the "responsible intermediary" and "knowledgeable user" doctrines. The court declined to extend the responsible intermediary doctrine to bulk chemical sales in this context, citing significant distinctions from pharmaceutical cases. Furthermore, it found questions of fact regarding the adequacy of warnings and Pride's knowledge. The court also rejected the knowledgeable user doctrine's application, stating it does not apply to unskilled workers and an employer's knowledge cannot be imputed to an employee. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment were denied.

products liabilitynegligencesummary judgmentduty to warnresponsible intermediary doctrineknowledgeable user doctrinebulk chemical salestrichloroethylene exposurefatal injurychemical hazards
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Milner v. Country Developers, Inc.

The Special Disability Fund appealed decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which imposed liability on the Fund for a claimant's injuries. The Board found that the employer, Country Developers, continued to employ the claimant, a carpenter, with knowledge of his pre-existing permanent physical impairment, triggering liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The claimant suffered a fracture of the nose and a hip dislocation in 1964, having a history of three ruptured disc surgeries and other conditions. The appeal centered on whether the employer had sufficient knowledge of the claimant’s permanent condition. Testimony from the employer’s foreman, Mr. Pahlck, indicated awareness of the claimant's back issues, including wearing a back brace and being favored by co-workers. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, reiterating that employer knowledge is a question of fact for the Board, and its findings, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityPre-existing Permanent ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityFracture of NoseHip DislocationRuptured Discs
References
3
Case No. ADJ10425864, ADJ7159539
Regular
Dec 24, 2018

GHASSAN MOSRIE vs. CHURCH OF THE CHIMES, GUIDEONE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior finding that the applicant's 2008 injury claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Board determined that imputed knowledge from the applicant's attorney does not constitute actual knowledge for tolling purposes. The employer's failure to provide statutory notice of rights, coupled with the applicant's lack of actual knowledge, prejudiced the applicant. Therefore, the Board found the applicant's claim for the November 8, 2008 injury is not barred by the statute of limitations, deferring other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsTollingClaim FormNotice of Potential EligibilityWaiverMandatory Settlement ConferenceAffirmative DefenseActual Knowledge
References
6
Case No. ADJ6937263
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

PAUL ESCUDERO vs. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Cisco Systems' petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Cisco failed to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his workers' compensation rights. Specifically, the employer did not provide legally required notices, and the applicant's vague consultation with a civil attorney did not constitute sufficient actual knowledge to start the statute of limitations. The Board also noted that actual knowledge cannot be imputed solely by an employee's representation by counsel.

Statute of limitationsTollingActual knowledgeWorkers' compensation rightsEmployer noticeCivil attorneyImputed knowledgePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judge
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodman v. WWOR-TV, Inc.

Brenda K. Woodman filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination against WWOR-TV, Inc., News America, Inc., and Fox Television Stations, Inc., following her termination in 2001 at the age of 61. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting they lacked knowledge of Woodman's age, a prerequisite for intentional age discrimination. The court determined that Woodman failed to present sufficient prima facie evidence to establish that the defendants were aware of her age at the time of her discharge. Her arguments based on circumstantial evidence, such as general industry knowledge of her age or personnel file access, were deemed speculative and insufficient. The court also dismissed Woodman's disparate impact claim due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and rejected the application of the joint employer doctrine to impute knowledge. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentADEANYSHRLNYCHRLDisparate TreatmentEmployer KnowledgePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkMerger and Acquisition
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy's Disposal Services, Inc. v. Gardner

The petitioners, Murphy's Disposal Services, Inc. and its owner Michael J. Evereth, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination that they willfully failed to pay prevailing wages. Their contracts with the Town of Colonie for waste collection did not always include prevailing wage schedules, and they initially relied on a 1996 Department of Labor opinion letter. However, the 2004 contract specified prevailing wages, and a Department investigator informed Evereth in 2006 that the opinion letter was incorrect. Despite this, petitioners continued to underpay their employees. Following an audit and hearing, a willful underpayment of approximately $70,000 was found. The Court confirmed this determination, asserting that knowledge or imputed knowledge of a violation suffices for a finding of willfulness, and dismissed the petitioners' arguments.

Prevailing wagewillful underpaymentLabor LawCPLR article 78waste collectionpublic contractsadministrative reviewemployee compensationDepartment of Laborbuilding service work
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2008

QBE Insurance v. D. Gangi Contracting Corp.

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed an order declaring that plaintiff insurer QBE was not obligated to defend or indemnify defendant general contractor Gangi in a personal injury action. The court found that QBE properly disclaimed coverage due to Gangi's late notice of the underlying accident, which occurred three years prior. Gangi's president, who had contemporaneous knowledge of the worker D’Ambrosi’s severe injuries, failed to promptly notify QBE. The court ruled that the president's knowledge was imputed to Gangi, triggering its duty to notify, and rejected Gangi's excuse of a good faith belief of nonliability given the severity of the injuries and potential Labor Law strict liability. QBE’s subsequent disclaimer was deemed timely, and effective against D'Ambrosi’s counsel despite not specifically addressing D'Ambrosi’s own notice failure.

Insurance DisclaimerLate NoticeGeneral ContractorWorker InjuryImputed KnowledgeCorporate OfficerPolicy BreachSummary JudgmentAppellate AffirmationNew York Law
References
4
Case No. 09-11893
Regular Panel Decision

Picard v. Estate of Mendelow (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC)

This memorandum decision addresses a motion by Irving H. Picard, the Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), seeking leave to amend a complaint against Steven B. Mendelow and other defendants to recover fraudulent transfers. The Trustee's original complaint, filed in 2010, alleged that Mendelow knew or should have known about Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The court outlines the history of the BLMIS Ponzi scheme, Mendelow's role as a sophisticated investor and operator of feeder funds like Telfran, and how he allegedly received guaranteed returns and fictitious profits (Extra P&L) from BLMIS. The decision discusses the impact of evolving pleading standards and the applicability of the Section 546(e) safe harbor on the Trustee's claims. Despite objections from the defendants regarding undue delay and prejudice due to the deaths of key witnesses (Frank DiPascali and Steven B. Mendelow), the court grants the motion to amend, finding that the Trustee's proposed amendment plausibly alleges Mendelow's actual knowledge of the fraud and that this knowledge can be imputed to the other defendants through agency relationships. However, the motion is denied to the extent it seeks to recover transfers predating January 1, 2001, when BLMIS was formed as a limited liability company. Claims against subsequent transferees are dismissed without prejudice.

SIPA liquidationPonzi schemefraudulent transfersmotion to amend complaintactual knowledgeagency relationshipfeeder fundsfictitious profitssecurities law violationsbankruptcy trustee
References
41
Case No. 05-cv-0200
Regular Panel Decision

Virga v. Big Apple Construction & Restoration Inc.

The plaintiffs, multi-employer labor-management trust funds, sued defendants Big Apple Builders, Inc. and Kang Yeon Lee for delinquent fringe benefits, dues checkoffs, and PAC contributions, totaling over $800,000. The defendants defaulted by failing to respond to interrogatories and a notice to admit. Judge McMahon initially granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs but denied imputed audit costs. Upon reconsideration, the judge reversed the decision on audit costs, finding them appropriate under the collective bargaining agreement's "other legal or equitable relief" clause, despite a prior ruling in Santa Fe Construction.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentReconsideration MotionAudit CostsPersonal LiabilityMulti-employer planFringe Benefits
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 544 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