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

Patterson-Stevens, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17

Patterson-Stevens (plaintiff) sought to vacate a July 24, 1995 judgment and amend its complaint against Local 17 (defendant). The original complaint sought an injunction to prevent arbitration of a grievance initiated by Local 17, which Patterson argued was untimely under a six-month statute of limitations. The court initially dismissed the case, lacking jurisdiction to issue an injunction. Patterson-Stevens then moved to vacate, arguing the complaint implicitly stated a claim for declaratory judgment. The court denied the motion, finding no clear error of law or manifest injustice in its prior decision. Furthermore, the proposed amendment for declaratory relief was deemed futile, as there was no legal precedent supporting a statute of limitations for grievance submission, unlike federal court actions.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrationStatute of LimitationsFederal JurisdictionInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to Vacate JudgmentMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Colvin

Plaintiff Nikimia Patterson, acting pro se, sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision to deny her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, a motion to which Patterson did not respond. United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ found that despite Patterson's severe impairments, including knee injuries and headaches, her depression was non-severe, and she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work with limitations on bending or stooping. The court considered additional medical evidence concerning Patterson's right knee injury, submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ's decision, but determined it was not probative enough to warrant a remand, as Patterson's own testimony indicated an active lifestyle even with the injury. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, dismissing the case.

Social Security DisabilitySSIDisability Insurance BenefitsALJ ReviewMedical ImpairmentKnee PainMeniscus TearOsteoarthritisResidual Functional CapacitySedentary Work
References
23
Case No. ADJ6884377
Regular
Jul 01, 2011

JULIE PATTERSON vs. SAFEWAY INC.

Here's a summary for a lawyer in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration for lien claimant Cole Chiropractic's petition regarding applicant Julie Patterson's claim against Safeway Inc. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) report, which found that the lien claimant waived issues concerning service of medical reports by failing to raise them before reconsideration. The ALJ also determined that the applicant failed to establish a compensable cumulative injury, and the lien claimant sought reimbursement for treatment for a non-compensable condition outside the statutory liability window. Ultimately, the Board found the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion more persuasive and denied the lien claimant's request for payment.

WCABSafeway Inc.Julie PattersonADJ6884377Order Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWCJWCAB Rule 10608(c)waivedRemoval
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04129 [150 AD3d 1131]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2017

Patterson v. Calogero

Rosemarie Patterson initiated an action against Richard Calogero and Timothy Hogue, alleging fraud and other claims stemming from the sale of her stock in Medical Recovery Collection Group, Inc. Patterson contended that Calogero and Hogue orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate revenue, thereby diminishing the corporation's value and fraudulently inducing her to sell her interest for an undervalued price. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that a previously executed general release precluded Patterson's claims against Calogero. Furthermore, the court found the claims against Hogue for aiding and abetting were unsustainable, and her individual fraud and tortious interference claims lacked the necessary legal elements.

FraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConstructive TrustTortious Interference with ContractStock Purchase AgreementSeverance AgreementGeneral ReleaseCorporate SharesDerivative Claim
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 1993

Patterson v. Army

Plaintiffs Patricia M. Patterson and Dr. Hoi Yat Kam, employees of Booth Memorial Medical Center, brought an action against Booth and others after allegedly being exposed to Formalin. Booth moved for summary judgment, arguing the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Law. The IAS Court initially denied Booth's motion, citing factual disputes regarding coverage and Booth's knowledge of Formalin dangers. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting Booth's motion and dismissing the complaint against it. The court found that a Workers' Compensation policy was in place, covering the loss period and paying Patterson's medical bills, thus making Workers' Compensation the exclusive remedy for injuries arising from employment. The plaintiffs' argument of intentional injury by Booth was rejected, as the tort was not deemed intentional under the legal standard requiring a deliberate act to injure a particular employee.

Workers CompensationExclusivity ClauseSummary JudgmentFormalin ExposureOccupational DiseaseIntentional TortAppellate ReversalEmployer LiabilityPathologyNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1986

Patterson v. Serota

The plaintiffs, James Patterson and June Patterson, appealed a judgment and resettled judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed their complaint for personal injuries after the opening statement of their counsel. James Patterson was injured when a scaffold collapsed at a construction site owned by defendant Nathan L. Serota. The plaintiffs alleged a cause of action under Labor Law § 240. The trial court dismissed the complaint, believing counsel failed to allege Serota's involvement with the scaffolding. The Appellate Court dismissed June Patterson's appeal as her claim was voluntarily discontinued. For James Patterson, the court reversed the dismissal, holding that dismissals after an opening statement are disfavored and that an owner's duty under Labor Law § 240 is nondelegable and does not require proof of control or supervision over the workplace. The matter was remitted for a new trial regarding James Patterson's claim against Serota.

Personal InjuryScaffold CollapseConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law § 240Owner LiabilityNondelegable DutyPrima Facie CaseDismissal after Opening StatementAppellate ReviewRemittal for New Trial
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Xerox Corporation

Plaintiff Vanessa Patterson sued Xerox Corporation and Samuel Peterson, alleging discrimination based on national origin, race, and gender, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. She also included common law claims for negligent supervision and retention. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The court granted dismissal of Title VII claims against Peterson due to his status as a co-employee, and all common law negligence claims against both defendants, citing the exclusivity of the New York Worker's Compensation Law. However, the court denied dismissal of hostile work environment and retaliation claims against Xerox under Title VII, and against both Xerox and Peterson under the New York State Human Rights Law, finding them plausible and reasonably related to her EEOC charge.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionIndividual LiabilityNegligent SupervisionWorker's Compensation Exclusivity
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Julian

Plaintiff Stephen Patterson sued Timothy Julian and the City of Utica, alleging racial discrimination and due process violations after being terminated as Commissioner of Public Works. A jury trial in December 2002 found against Patterson on race discrimination and free speech retaliation claims. However, the jury found the City of Utica liable for due process violations related to false statements and failure to provide a name-clearing hearing, awarding Patterson $282,917.00. The court then considered Patterson's motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which it granted in part, awarding $50,903.32 against the City of Utica. The total judgment against the City of Utica amounted to $333,820.32, while all claims against Mayor Julian were dismissed.

Racial DiscriminationDue ProcessFirst AmendmentAttorney's Fees42 U.S.C. § 1983Hostile Work EnvironmentUnlawful TerminationJury VerdictCivil RightsNew York Human Rights Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 884 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