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

Jones v. Shalala

Plaintiff Glenn Jones challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Jones, who sustained a back injury in 1988, had his application for benefits denied initially and on reconsideration, a decision upheld by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Appeals Council. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, focusing on the application of the treating physician rule and the determination of Jones's residual functional capacity for sedentary work. The court found that the ALJ properly considered contradictory medical evidence from consulting physicians and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Jones could perform sedentary work. Consequently, the court affirmed the Secretary's determination, denying Jones's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the defendant's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkBack InjuryMedical EvidenceALJ DecisionAffirmed DecisionFederal Court Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keenan v. Jones

Paul D. Keenan and Nora Keenan filed a complaint against Melvin Jones and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., alleging negligence caused Keenan's workplace injuries. Defendants then filed a third-party complaint seeking indemnity or contribution from Silo, Inc., Keenan's employer. During the proceedings, the New York Legislature enacted the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996, which largely eliminated employer liability for contribution or indemnity. Silo, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment, arguing the Omnibus Act should apply retroactively to bar the claim. The court denied Silo's motion, concluding that New York courts consistently hold the Omnibus Act applies prospectively only and does not affect pending cases.

Workers' Compensation Reform ActOmnibus ActRetroactive ApplicationProspective ApplicationSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party ClaimIndemnityContributionEmployer LiabilityNew York Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Publishers' Employees, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co.

Plaintiffs, the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, Inc. (IAPE) and ten Canadian employees, sued defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that Dow Jones violated its fiduciary obligations by changing the Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan's benefit allocation formula, which resulted in reduced benefits for Canadian employees due to currency conversion. Dow Jones argued it was not a fiduciary for this specific act or that the action was not a breach, asserting the right to amend plan contributions. The court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, found that Dow Jones's fiduciary duties under ERISA did not extend to the method of calculating employer contributions or modifying non-accrued benefits. The court concluded that both the Plan provisions and ERISA allowed prospective changes in contributions by the employer, and therefore, Dow Jones had not breached any fiduciary duty. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAFiduciary DutyProfit-Sharing PlanBenefit AllocationSummary JudgmentNon-Accrued BenefitsPlan AmendmentEmployer ContributionsCanadian EmployeesDistrict Court
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00854
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2022

Jones v. Adams

James Jones, a security guard at the New York Botanical Gardens, was injured when struck by a pickup truck operated by Toby Adams, an NYBG employee, and owned by Kaleidoscope Garden Design, LLC. Jones, who received Workers' Compensation benefits, subsequently sued Adams and Kaleidoscope for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions barred the action because Adams was a co-employee acting within the scope of employment. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the defendants demonstrated the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) exclusivity provisions, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Exclusivity ProvisionCo-Employee ImmunitySummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury ActionAutomobile AccidentAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionScope of EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySecurity Guard Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kimmco Energy Corp. v. Jones

Plaintiffs Kimmco Energy Corp., Peter, and Elbrun Kimmelman filed suit, individually and derivatively, against defendants William and Ruth Jones, alleging fraud in two investment partnerships. Plaintiffs claimed misrepresentations by William Jones regarding the partnerships' activities led them to overpay for properties and deplete capital. Federal claims were brought under RICO and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, along with nine pendent state claims. The RICO claims were subsequently dropped. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the alleged misrepresentations were not

Securities FraudRICORule 10b-5Motion to DismissPendent JurisdictionInvestment PartnershipsMisrepresentationCausationFraudulent InducementCivil Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. CBS, INC.

Plaintiff Walter Jones sued CBS, Inc., Viacom International, Inc., and individuals Samm-Art Williams, Tim Reid, and Hugh Wilson, alleging copyright infringement of his radio play script "Peachtree Street" by their television series "Frank's Place," and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of substantial similarity between the two works. The court analyzed the works for similarities in characters, plots (specifically voodoo and a missing body), and overall "feel," finding that any similarities were limited to non-copyrightable general ideas or undeveloped stock characters. It concluded that no reasonable jury could find the works substantially similar, thus precluding a finding of copying. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing both the copyright infringement and Lanham Act claims.

Copyright InfringementFalse Designation of OriginLanham ActCopyright ActSummary JudgmentSubstantial SimilarityCopyrightable CharactersPlot SimilarityAesthetic AppealOrdinary Observer Test
References
15
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00200 [179 AD3d 1272]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Chedeville, Inc.

Claimant Kanica Jones appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied her application for Board review. The Board found her counsel's application form RB-89 incomplete, specifically concerning question 15 about objections made at the hearing. Additionally, Jones's pro se application was rejected for not being in the proper format and for untimeliness. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that adherence to application completeness and format requirements is critical and that prejudice does not need to be shown for non-compliance. The court concluded that the Board acted within its discretion in denying both applications for review.

Appellate DivisionBoard ReviewProcedural DenialForm RB-89 Non-complianceCompleteness RequirementFraud AllegationTimeliness of FilingPro Se SubmissionsAdministrative ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05365
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2019

Matter of Jones v. Human Resources Admin.

Claimant Laverne Jones appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her application for administrative review. Jones, a fraud investigator, had sustained work-related injuries and sought to amend her claim for additional consequential injuries, which a WCLJ disallowed. Her counsel's application for Board review was rejected for not being completely filled out, specifically missing information for question 13. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board acted within its discretion by enforcing its procedural rules requiring complete applications, citing its broad regulatory powers under the Workers' Compensation Law.

Administrative Review DenialProcedural Non-ComplianceWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppellate Division Third DepartmentBoard Rules EnforcementApplication for Review (Form RB-89)Completeness DoctrineDiscretionary AuthorityWork Injury BenefitsConsequential Injury Claim
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03157
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Burrell Orchards, Inc.

The case involves Paulette Jones, widow of Roy Jones, appealing a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Roy Jones suffered a work injury in 1996, resulting in permanent total disability, with benefits paid until his death in 2017. Paulette Jones filed a death benefits claim and sought an upward adjustment to the average weekly wage and reimbursement for home health care services provided to her late husband. The Board denied these requests, citing the doctrine of laches. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision regarding laches, finding the delay in asserting rights was explained by the decedent's lack of representation and conflicting wage evidence. The court concluded that the Board's application of laches was improper, modifying the decision and granting the motion to reopen the injury claim.

Workers' Compensation LawLaches DoctrineAverage Weekly Wage ModificationDeath BenefitsReopening ClaimPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewHome Health Care ReimbursementSpinal Cord InjuryEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Jones

This case addresses a motion by the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Defendant Jones. Jones was initially sued by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (H&H) for $2,370, representing a six-day hospital stay. Jones then sought indemnification from the Commissioner, asserting eligibility for Medicaid and that an H&H-submitted claim for benefits was not honored. The Commissioner sought dismissal on grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and constituted an impermissible collateral attack. The court denied the motion, finding it unclear that the city agency played no role in benefit administration, citing that the Statute of Limitations for indemnification runs from when the party is compelled to pay, and noting the lack of evidence that Jones received notice of a claim denial.

MedicaidIndemnificationThird-Party ActionMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSocial ServicesHospital BillingGovernment LiabilityHealthcare CostsCity Agency
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,697 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