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
Dec 29, 2014

City of New York v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

The City and State of New York sued FedEx Ground, alleging the knowing delivery of unstamped cigarettes from 2005 to 2012, which violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA), the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and New York Public Health Law § 1399-ii, and constituted a public nuisance. FedEx Ground filed a motion to dismiss these claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss the CCTA, RICO, and RICO conspiracy claims, finding sufficient grounds for aggregation of sales, pattern of predicate acts, participation in the enterprise, injury to business or property, and proximate causation. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the New York Public Health Law claim, ruling that the 2013 amendment, which would grant the City and State enforcement authority, did not apply retroactively. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the public nuisance claim, concluding that it primarily involved alleged tax evasion, which is already subject to comprehensive regulation, rather than unauthorized shipments to minors.

Contraband CigarettesCigarette TraffickingRICO ActPublic Health LawPublic NuisanceMotion to DismissTax EvasionStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationProximate Cause
References
42
Case No. 06 Civ. 7784
Regular Panel Decision

National City Golf Finance v. Higher Ground Country Club Management Co.

Defendant and third-party plaintiff Higher Ground asserted claims against third-party defendant ProLink for breach of warranty and for indemnification and contribution. ProLink moved to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint or compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause and a forum selection clause. Higher Ground argued the agreement was unsigned and unenforceable under the statute of frauds and that claims were outside the scope. The court, applying the Federal Arbitration Act, found an agreement to arbitrate existed due to Higher Ground's conduct, and the claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration clause. ProLink’s motion was granted, and proceedings on the Third-Party Complaint were stayed pending arbitration in Maricopa County, Arizona.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Contract LawBreach of WarrantyIndemnificationContributionForum Selection ClauseStatute of FraudsAgreement to ArbitrateThird-Party Complaint
References
46
Case No. 07 Civ. 1358(DAB)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2009

Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc.

Plaintiff Geoffrey Osberg filed a class action against Foot Locker, Inc. and its Retirement Plan, alleging violations of ERISA due to the 1996 conversion of the plan to a cash balance system. The complaint included claims for age discrimination, insufficient notice of benefit reduction, misleading summary plan descriptions (SPDs), and breach of fiduciary duties. Defendants moved to dismiss all counts, but the court denied dismissal on grounds of standing and statute of limitations for all claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss for age discrimination (Count One) and insufficient notice under the 1996 ERISA § 204(h) (Count Two), aligning with precedents that found cash balance plans not inherently age discriminatory and that the notice provided met the then-current requirements. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss regarding the misleading SPD (Count Three) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count Four), concluding that the SPD might have been insufficiently clear about the "wear-away" effect and benefit reductions, thereby supporting the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

ERISApension plancash balance planbenefit conversionage discriminationfiduciary dutysummary plan descriptionnotice requirementsmotion to dismissstatute of limitations
References
15
Case No. Index No. 157783/18, 596011/19; Appeal No. 5535; Case No. 2024-06221
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2026

Tejeda v. 57th & 6th Ground LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The plaintiff, Juan Miguel Presinal Tejeda, was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims after being injured due to a scaffold lacking guardrails. The Supreme Court also granted landlords' motion for summary judgment on their cross-claims for contractual and common-law indemnification and breach of contract against the plaintiff's employer and third-party defendants. The appellate court found that the employer's insurance policies were non-compliant with lease requirements, creating a gap in coverage and resulting in damages to the landlords. The court concluded that the violation of Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries and affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Scaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationBreach of ContractInsurance Coverage DisputePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyThird-Party ClaimsDuty to Provide Safe Workplace
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ7485771
Regular
Sep 25, 2015

HUGO CANO vs. AMCOR PET PACKAGING, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration, which sought to overturn the dismissal of its lien. The dismissal occurred because the lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference and subsequently failed to overcome the presumption of receipt of a Notice of Intention to Dismiss. Furthermore, the petition itself was unverified, providing an independent ground for denial under Labor Code section 5902. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding insufficient grounds for reconsideration based on the lack of evidence to rebut the mailing presumption and the unverified petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LiensLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to DismissService of ProcessProof of ServicePresumption of ReceiptUnverified PetitionLabor Code section 5902
References
0
Case No. ADJ6650878
Regular
Dec 09, 2015

BRIDGETTE HUNTER vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IHSS; YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Bridgette Hunter's Petition for Reconsideration regarding her Stipulated Award for industrial injuries to her spine and psyche. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge, who recommended denial. Although the ALJ noted the petition might be untimely, the Board found insufficient proof of service to make that determination, thus denying reconsideration on other grounds. The applicant's claims of fraud, excess of power, and insufficient evidence were rejected as the award was based on agreed-upon Agreed Medical Evaluator reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated Awarduntimely filingproof of serviceAME reportsBridgette HunterDepartment of Social Services IHSSYork Risk Services GroupWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ14178627
Regular
Feb 15, 2023

ELISANDRO CAMPOS vs. PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Elisandro Campos's petition to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The Board found that the petition lacked specific facts, under penalty of perjury, to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Legal precedent dictates that conclusory allegations or subjective perceptions of bias are insufficient, and judicial expressions of opinion based on evidence do not constitute grounds for disqualification. The Board also admonished the applicant for filing duplicative and potentially frivolous pleadings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationWCJdisqualification groundsCode of Civil Procedure section 641unqualified opinionbiasenmityWCAB Rule 10960affidavit
References
8
Case No. ADJ4295446 (GOL 0087464)
Regular
Mar 20, 2014

Virginia Landaw vs. Toyota of Santa Barbara, Public Service Mutual Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for removal, which sought to have hearings held at the Santa Barbara district office rather than Oxnard. The WCAB found that the relocation was necessary due to insufficient space at the Santa Barbara facility, impacting lobby, hearing room, and parking availability. The Board reaffirmed its authority to calendar hearings at different offices based on available resources and cited the applicant's minimal increased travel as insufficient grounds for removal. The WCAB also highlighted the availability of CourtCall and the ongoing efforts to secure a more suitable Santa Barbara location.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDivision of Workers' CompensationDistrict OfficeVenueCourtCallMandatory Settlement ConferenceExpedited HearingJudicial NoticeAdministrative Law Judge
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08227
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Matter of Kelly v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

In 2006, claimant Grace Kelly established a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) repeatedly sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, which was denied by Workers' Compensation Law Judges. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these denials and assessed $500 penalties against both SIF and its counsel, Walsh and Hacker, for filing an application for review without reasonable grounds. Walsh and Hacker appealed the penalty imposed against them to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division found insufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that Walsh and Hacker's application lacked reasonable grounds, and therefore reversed the penalty against them, modifying and affirming the Board's decision.

PenaltiesAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAttorney SanctionsAdministrative LawBoard DecisionJudiciary Law § 431
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,572 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