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

D'ANDREA v. Rafla-Demetrious

Mark A. D’Andrea sued Methodist Hospital of Brooklyn, alleging multiple claims including invasion of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. The court had previously granted summary judgment on all claims except the invasion of privacy claim, which proceeded to trial. After D’Andrea presented his case, Methodist Hospital moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted this motion, ruling that the use of D’Andrea’s photograph in the hospital’s brochures was merely incidental to the document's main purpose and thus did not violate New York’s invasion of privacy statute. The court emphasized that the statute narrowly applies only to commercial use, and incidental uses are not actionable.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawCommercial Use of LikenessIncidental Use DoctrineFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)Summary JudgmentPromotional BrochureMedical Residency ProgramRight of PublicityTort Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Gregorio v. CBS, Inc.

Plaintiff Carl De Gregorio sued CBS after footage of him holding hands with a co-worker on Madison Avenue was broadcast for a news segment about romance, despite his explicit request to prevent its use. De Gregorio alleged invasion of privacy under the New York Civil Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and defamation. The court granted summary judgment to CBS, finding that the broadcast, filmed in a public place for a newsworthy topic, did not constitute an invasion of privacy or defamation. The decision emphasized that incidental use and the constitutional protection of freedom of the press precluded liability, even if the subject desired greater privacy.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortNewsworthinessIncidental UsePublic Street
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearce v. Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc.

Plaintiff Anna Pearce initiated an action against Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc. and several other defendants, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, promissory estoppel, invasion of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law Section 51, unjust enrichment, and employment discrimination under New York City and State Human Rights Laws. The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss the entire action for failure to state a claim. District Judge Kimba M. Wood ruled on the motion, granting it partially and denying it in part. The court sustained the claims related to breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and invasion of privacy, allowing them to proceed. Conversely, the claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and employment discrimination were dismissed.

Breach of ContractPromissory EstoppelInvasion of PrivacyMotion to DismissNew York Civil Rights LawOral AgreementsStatute of FraudsImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingEmployment DiscriminationHuman Rights Law
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Heyman

Plaintiff Amador Rivera, a security officer for the Smithsonian Institution, sued his employer and supervisors, Luis Palau and Edward Dolan, alleging discrimination based on his HIV status and subsequent retaliation. Rivera claimed violations under the Federal Rehabilitation Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and the Federal Tort Claims Act for invasion of privacy. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the Rehabilitation Act claims because the Smithsonian is not an executive branch entity covered by the Act. Title VII claims failed as disability discrimination is outside its scope, and state/local human rights claims were precluded by exclusive federal remedies. Finally, the court dismissed the invasion of privacy claim, declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims were resolved.

Rehabilitation ActTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationHIV StatusFederal EmployeesRetaliation ClaimJudgment on PleadingsJurisdictionSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harley v. Druzba

This action involves Amanda Harley, daughter of Gerald and Jacqueline Harley, suing social worker Joseph V. Druzba, her mother, and maternal grandmother. The dispute arises from events stemming from her parents' contentious divorce, where Druzba was retained for family counseling regarding visitation issues that subsequently deteriorated. Amanda alleged Druzba's negligence resulted in loss of sibling visitation, and claimed torts of custodial interference, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The court addressed Druzba's motion to dismiss the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action. The first cause of action, concerning loss of sibling visitation, was not dismissed, acknowledging legislative recognition of such rights, while the remaining four causes of action were dismissed for various legal deficiencies, including lack of standing, no contractual relationship, and New York's stance on common-law invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress in matrimonial contexts.

Sibling Visitation RightsCustodial InterferenceBreach of ContractInvasion of PrivacyIntentional Infliction of Emotional HarmMotion to DismissSocial Worker NegligenceFamily CounselingDivorce LitigationCPLR 3211(a)(7)
References
9
Case No. LAO 0829008
Regular
Apr 01, 2008

CHRISTINA D. SALCEDO vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as the WCJ's order denying invasive diagnostic tests was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal due to potential due process issues and the need to fully develop the record on causation. The decision deferred the issue of diagnostic tests, affirming other aspects of the WCJ's order and returning the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalDiagnostic TestsInvasiveCompelUrological InjuryCompensable ConsequenceDue ProcessMedical Proof
References
9
Case No. ADJ119309 (OAK 0332713) ADJ1352097 (OAK 332714)
Regular
Aug 09, 2011

KEN LAWHN vs. FARMERS INSURANCE, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's order compelling a neuropsychological evaluation. The Board determined the WCJ's order was an interim discovery ruling, not a final decision on substantive rights, making it ineligible for reconsideration. The applicant's petition for removal was also denied, adopting the WCJ's reasoning for the original order. The applicant had argued the evaluation was an invasion of privacy and unnecessary as neuropsychological health was not at issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNeuropsychological QME evaluationNon-industrial closed head injuryOpen labor marketPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderDiscovery orderInterim orderSubstantive rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Lincoln Electric Co.

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed an order denying summary judgment to the defendant in a toxic substance exposure case. The court clarified that the statute of limitations begins when the plaintiff discovers the primary condition, not its causation. Plaintiff's medical records and deposition testimony indicated symptoms of pulmonary fibrosis by late 2007 or 2008, necessitating an invasive procedure. This evidence established that the plaintiff's condition was apparent more than three years before the action was commenced on January 30, 2012, thus rendering the action time-barred. The motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was therefore granted.

statute of limitationstoxic exposurepulmonary fibrosissummary judgmentmedical recordsappellate reviewdiscovery rulepersonal injuryCPLRtime-barred
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bloom v. Fox News of Los Angeles

Plaintiff William Bloom sued Fox Television Stations, Inc. for defamation and false light invasion of privacy, alleging a news broadcast falsely portrayed him as a morally corrupt and incompetent physician. The broadcast detailed charges from the New York State Department of Health's Office of Professional Medical Conduct, which led to limitations on Bloom's medical license. Fox moved for summary judgment, arguing the statements were substantially true, privileged, or pure opinion. The Court granted summary judgment to Fox, concluding the broadcast was a fair and true report of official proceedings and that statements made were either substantially true or unactionable opinion.

DefamationFalse LightSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentNew York LawMedical MisconductOfficial ProceedingsSubstantial TruthFreedom of SpeechMedia Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 19 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