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

Moodie v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Vincent Moodie, a Black male, sued the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for racial discrimination under Title VII after his termination due to an altercation with a white co-worker. Moodie claimed his dismissal was racially motivated and that the bank's stated reason—that he was the aggressor in a workplace fight—was a pretext. The incident involved Moodie confronting his co-worker, Tony Riolo, over a derogatory remark, which escalated into a physical engagement. The court, presided over by Judge Lasker, found that Moodie failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the bank's internal investigation or dismissal decision was tainted by racial prejudice. The complaint was therefore dismissed, as the bank provided credible non-discriminatory explanations for its actions and demonstrated a consistent policy regarding workplace violence.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIIWorkplace ViolenceWrongful TerminationEmployer PolicyPretextDisparate TreatmentInternal InvestigationFederal Reserve BankAggressor
References
5
Case No. ADJ9098975
Regular
May 16, 2025

SHELLY REESE vs. COUNTY OF KERN, KERN COUNTY SHERIFF, SHERIFF'S RESERVE ASSOCIATION, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

Shelly Reese, a reserve deputy for the County of Kern, was injured during a motocross demonstration at the 2013 Stampede Days, an annual fundraising event for the Sheriff's Department. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to determine if Reese was an employee under the Workers' Compensation Act. The WCAB found that Reese established a presumption of employment due to receiving remuneration in the form of training and uniforms, therefore overriding the public agency volunteer exclusion. Concluding she was performing peace officer duties, the Board rescinded the prior finding of her as a professional athlete and reclassified her employment as a Peace Officer, Occupational Group Number 490.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationReserve DeputyStampede DaysMotocross DemonstrationProfessional AthletePeace OfficerLabor Code Sections 335133573352(a)(9)
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2008

Weitz v. Anzek Construction Corp.

This case involves an injured carpenter who sustained personal injuries while installing trusses at a school construction project in the East Ramapo Central School District. The injured plaintiff, initially believed to be employed by Anzek Construction Corporation, was paid by Steve & Andy, Inc. Anzek, a carpentry subcontractor, appealed a Supreme Court order that denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding issues of fact regarding the injured plaintiff's employer status and whether Anzek, as an agent of the owner/general contractor, had control over the work site and methods. Additionally, Anzek failed to prove it was free from negligence or that it complied with contractual obligations to procure liability insurance.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipSpecial EmployeeCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law ViolationsConstruction AccidentElectrical WiresIndemnificationInsurance Procurement
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bloomberg L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

This case addresses whether the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) is obligated under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to search for records held by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) and the applicability of FOIA Exemptions 4 and 5 to documents in the Board's possession. Bloomberg L.P. initiated the suit after the Board's limited search and withholding of information related to financial crisis interventions. The court found the Board's search inadequate, mandating a search of FRBNY records per its own regulations. Additionally, it ruled that FOIA Exemptions 4 and 5 were improperly applied to the "Remaining Term Reports," ordering their disclosure. Consequently, the court granted Bloomberg’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Board’s.

FOIAFederal Reserve SystemAgency RecordsInformation DisclosureGovernment TransparencyFinancial CrisisSummary JudgmentFederal Reserve Bank of New YorkPublic InformationJudicial Review
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singh v. New York City Transit Authority

The case involves a plaintiff worker injured while employed by Promo Pro, a contractor for the Transit Authority (TA). Promo Pro was contractually obligated to indemnify the TA and procure liability insurance naming the TA as an additional insured, which it did with Credit General Insurance Company (CG). After the worker sued the TA, the TA tendered its defense to CG. CG agreed to defend under a reservation of rights and was later placed in liquidation. The TA then commenced a third-party action against Promo Pro for contractual indemnification and sought reimbursement for defense costs, arguing it was entitled to independent counsel due to a conflict of interest and CG's reservation of rights. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment on indemnification due to factual issues regarding the TA's negligence but granted the TA's request for independent counsel and reimbursement. On appeal, this decision was reversed, as the motion court improperly enforced CG's obligation through Promo Pro, who was not CG, and the indemnification claim was not ripe due to factual issues of TA's negligence.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentDuty to DefendAdditional InsuredReservation of RightsConflict of InterestIndependent CounselInsurance LiquidationThird-Party ActionEmployer Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2001

Steiner v. Benroal Realty Associates, L.P.

The injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker, suffered a knee injury after stepping on a garbage bag while attempting to hook a dumpster. The plaintiffs initiated legal action against the property owner and site manager, alleging the existence of a dangerous and defective condition on the premises. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. This appellate court subsequently affirmed that decision, ruling that a defendant is not liable when a worker, aware of obvious employment hazards and possessing resources for safe conduct, performs the job incautiously.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySanitation WorkerObvious HazardAssumption of RiskAppellate DecisionNassau CountyKnee InjuryDangerous Condition
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Zamora v. New York Neurologic Associates

The Injured Workers Bar Association filed a motion seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae in an appeal. The court granted the motion, accepting the proposed brief for filing. The order specifies that two copies of the brief must be served and nineteen copies filed within seven days.

amicus curiaemotionbrief filingappellate procedurelegal association
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lucas v. KD Development Constuction Corp.

The injured plaintiff, a construction worker, was struck by a car while acting as a flagman at a construction site. Defendants KD International Development Corp., the general contractor, and Sanford Tower Associates, the owner, appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The appellate court modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendants for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.29, finding they complied with flagman requirements. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim concerning 12 NYCRR 23-1.30 (lighting), as defendants failed to show prima facie compliance, and for the Labor Law § 200 claims due to existing questions of fact regarding supervision and control.

Personal InjuriesConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentLabor LawFlagman DutyIndustrial CodeLighting SafetyNegligenceAppellate DecisionPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibson v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

John Gibson, a seaman, suffered a heart attack in 1970 while working aboard the vessel Seawitch. His wife, Anna Gibson, subsequently initiated an action in February 1977 against his employer, American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, claiming damages for loss of consortium. American Export sought to dismiss her complaint, contending that spouses of injured seamen lacked a claim for loss of consortium under general maritime law at the time, and that the landmark Supreme Court decision in American Export Lines v Alvez (1980), which established this right, should not be retroactively applied. The court thoroughly reviewed the evolution of maritime law concerning loss of consortium, referencing key decisions such as Moragne (1970), Sea-Land Servs. v Gaudet (1974), and Alvez (1980). Ultimately, the court denied American Export's motion, ruling that the Alvez decision should be applied retroactively to cases like Mrs. Gibson's, where the plaintiff was actively challenging existing legal precedents prior to the Alvez ruling.

RetroactivityLoss of ConsortiumMaritime LawSeaman's RightsPersonal InjuryGeneral Maritime LawSpousal ClaimsFederal Maritime LawAppellate ReviewTort Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rutledge v. Al. G. Kelly & Miller Bros. Circus

Chief Judge Desmond concurs with the decision to affirm in the present cases, providing a separate statement for simpler grounds. He argues that employees hired to work in New York and other states, if injured while actually working in New York, should unquestionably be covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law. He references earlier cases like Matter of Marks v. Gray where regularly traveling employees injured outside the State were awarded compensation, emphasizing that in the current cases, the employees were injured inside the State while at work. The opinion stresses that the court is construing the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law, which presumes coverage for workers injured doing their hired job in New York, where they were hired to do it. The decision can be based on simpler and more basic grounds because the traveling employee was injured while actually at work in New York State.

Workers' Compensation CoverageOut-of-State EmploymentIn-State InjuryTraveling EmployeeJurisdictionConcurring OpinionWorkmen's Compensation Law ConstructionPresumption of CoverageEmployee ItineraryContracted Work Location
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,122 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