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. 2017 NY Slip Op 03584 [150 AD3d 1360]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Matter of Xie v. JP Morgan Chase

The claimant, Agnes Xie, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits. Xie, a bank executive for JP Morgan Chase, alleged she sustained neck, back, and shoulder injuries in November 2013 due to an ergonomically incorrect workstation. After her employment was terminated, she filed a claim, which was initially proposed for establishment for a back injury by the Board but later rescinded. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, citing lack of notice and insufficient evidence linking the injuries to employment, a decision upheld by the Board. On appeal, Xie argued employer preclusion and the Board's erroneous failure to establish her claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found these arguments unpreserved for review. The court also noted that while email records regarding workstation issues were before the Board, they did not alter the outcome, as the Board's decision rested on its assessment of witness credibility. Consequently, the Board's decision denying benefits was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation ClaimWorkstation InjuryErgonomic IssuesNeck, Back, Shoulder PainNotice RequirementPreservation of IssuesAppellate ReviewBoard Continuing JurisdictionCredibility of TestimonyClaim Denial
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04241
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2017

Alvarez v. Vingsan Ltd. Partnership

Franklin G.S. Alvarez was injured after falling from an unsecured ladder while installing sheetrock at premises owned by Vingsan Limited Partnership and leased by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. He, along with his wife, sued alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), common-law negligence, and loss of consortium. Initially, procedural errors led to denials of summary judgment motions. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied JP Morgan's cross-motion to dismiss that cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and JP Morgan failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Ladder AccidentConstruction Site InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilityProximate CauseWorker SafetyUnsecured LadderReargument
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Overby v. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK & JP MORGAN CHASE

Plaintiff Darryl Overby sued Chase Manhattan Bank and J.P. Morgan Chase for negligence, racial discrimination, mental duress, and wrongful cancellation of a life insurance policy, seeking ten million dollars. Overby, an African American, alleged racial discrimination based on the bank's failure to suggest investment options and unauthorized transactions. He also claimed negligence for not being offered investment opportunities and mental duress linked to the alleged discrimination. The court granted Chase's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent. It also dismissed banking claims as time-barred due to Overby's failure to notify the bank within contractual and statutory timeframes, and found no evidence of his life insurance policy ever being canceled.

Summary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationNegligenceMental DuressElectronic Funds Transfer ActBanking ClaimsPro Se LitigantContractual ObligationTimelinessLack of Evidence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2011

Petrisch v. JP Morgan Chase

Plaintiff Harold Petrisch brought an action against his former employer, JP Morgan Chase, and former managers, Phyllis Pressa and Rhonda Dauway, alleging national origin discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Plaintiff claimed he was subjected to excessive work demands, belittling, and discriminatory remarks, leading to his demotion and termination. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Petrisch's adverse employment actions were due to poor job performance and lack of commitment to training. The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants on all claims, finding insufficient evidence of pretext for discrimination or retaliation and that the alleged conduct did not constitute a hostile work environment. Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel, Stephen Jackson, was sanctioned for repeated failures to comply with court orders and local rules, ordered to pay Defendants' attorneys' fees, and to attend continuing legal education courses.

National Origin DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentSanctionsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 16Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
72
Case No. ADJ7433112
Regular
Mar 09, 2016

BYRON IRVING vs. JP MORGAN CHASE, administered by LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, JP Morgan Chase, against a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board has granted reconsideration based on an initial review, deeming it necessary for a thorough understanding of the factual and legal issues. Further proceedings are anticipated to facilitate a just decision. All future correspondence regarding the petition must be filed directly with the Appeals Board, not district offices or e-filed, until a decision after reconsideration is issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting ReconsiderationBYRON IRVINGJP MORGAN CHASELIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCEADJ7433112Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Birch v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.

Mario Birch, a former branch manager for JPMorgan Chase & Co., sued Chase alleging he was terminated based on race and national origin discrimination (42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, New York Human Rights Law) and in retaliation for supporting a disabled employee (ADA, New York Human Rights Law). He also claimed defamation for internal reports portraying him negatively. Chase moved for summary judgment. The court found Birch failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation, as he provided no direct evidence and failed to show similarly situated comparators were treated more leniently. His defamation claim was dismissed due to qualified immunity and lack of evidence of malice. All other potential claims for negligence, malicious prosecution, fraud, and breach of contract were also dismissed. The court granted Chase's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Birch's causes of action.

DiscriminationRetaliationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationDefamationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawHostile Work EnvironmentComparative Evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiff Nigel Kennedy sued J.P. Morgan Chase & Company for discrimination (hostile work environment) and retaliatory discharge under Title VII, NYHRL, and NYCHRL. The discrimination claim stems from a single incident in April 2000 where a Vice President made a racially offensive comment, followed by unwelcome attempts at apology. The court found this incident insufficient to establish a hostile work environment and noted that J.P. Morgan Chase took appropriate remedial actions. The retaliatory discharge claim arose from Plaintiff's termination in December 2002, months after he filed his lawsuit, despite his supervisor recommending his retention during a reduction-in-force. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the hostile work environment claim but denied it for the retaliatory discharge claim, allowing that claim to proceed to trial due to remaining genuine issues of material fact.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawRacial DiscriminationWrongful TerminationReduction in Force
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2000

Tevdorachvili v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Plaintiff Nikolai Tevdorachvili sued Chase Manhattan Bank, alleging unauthorized wire transfers amounting to $157,000 from his checking account in August 1998, claiming forgery and lack of knowledge. He brought suit against Chase for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of New York Banking Law § 676, breach of implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, negligence, and gross negligence. Defendant Chase moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim. The court denied Chase's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for insufficiency of service, finding plaintiff to be an alien for diversity jurisdiction and exercising discretion to waive the 120-day service rule. However, the court granted Chase's motion to dismiss all causes of action except for the breach of contract claim, finding no independent basis for the other claims under New York law.

Wire Transfer FraudBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionService of ProcessMotion to DismissFiduciary DutyNew York Banking LawConsequential DamagesDeclaratory Judgment
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Nemko, Inc. (In re Nemko, Inc.)

Plaintiff The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (Chase) filed an adversary proceeding against Defendant United Jersey Bank (UJB, later Summit Bank) and Nemko, Inc. concerning the priority of security interests in Nemko's accounts receivable. An initial court order awarded UJB priority, leading Nemko to pay UJB $649,256. This decision was later vacated by the District Court, which remanded the case to determine if Nemko's chief executive office had transferred from New Jersey to New York. The court found that Nemko's office had indeed moved, causing UJB's (Summit's) security interest to lapse due to a failure to file in New York. Chase was subsequently granted judgment on the principal amount, with the issue of prejudgment interest reserved. Following further appeals and a settlement where Summit paid the principal to Chase, Chase filed the instant motion for summary judgment to determine its entitlement to prejudgment interest for the period Summit held the funds. The court granted Chase's motion, concluding that under New York C.P.L.R. § 5001(a) and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), an award of prejudgment interest at a rate of 5% was equitable to compensate Chase for the loss of use of the funds.

Prejudgment InterestSummary JudgmentSecurity InterestAccounts ReceivableUniform Commercial CodeBankruptcyChapter 11Lien PriorityChief Executive Office TransferCash Collateral
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doodnath v. Morgan Contracting Corp.

Plaintiff, a truck driver for subcontractor Regional, was injured while stacking materials in Regional's truck, slipping on a wet plank. Property owner Cornell and general contractor Morgan were granted summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims and cross claims against them. The court determined that Regional, not Cornell or Morgan, controlled the work activity, and Cornell and Morgan lacked timely notice of the specific hazard. Plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d) was also rejected because he slipped on a stacked plank, not a work surface. Claims for contractual indemnification against Regional and AWR Group were deemed moot.

Truck DriverWorkplace InjurySidewalk BridgeSummary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceContractual Indemnification
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 136 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