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

Levine v. United Parcel Service

A claimant, employed by United Parcel Service, suffered stress and mental depression on May 13, 1982, allegedly due to supervisor harassment, which the Workers' Compensation Board ruled an accidental injury. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the facts of the incident and the medical causation, especially given the claimant's preexisting anxiety. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing its prerogative to assess witness credibility and weigh conflicting medical evidence. The Board's findings, based on the claimant's testimony and psychiatrist's report, were deemed supported by substantial evidence. The decision affirmed the compensability of mental injury precipitated by psychic trauma under the Workers' Compensation Law.

Mental InjuryPsychic TraumaHarassmentSupervisor ConductAccidental InjuryPreexisting ConditionCredibility of WitnessesMedical EvidencePosttraumatic Stress DisorderAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Engler v. United Parcel Service

Claimant, a delivery driver for United Parcel Service, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2001, alleging interstitial pulmonary fibrosis due to exposure to dust and irritants. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found he suffered an occupational disease and permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, but the Court reversed in 2003, remitting the case to consider accidental injury. In an amended decision, the Board ruled claimant sustained an accidental injury from airborne irritants. The employer and carrier appealed again. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's condition arose from unusual environmental factors within his delivery vehicle, consistent with medical opinions linking his lung disease to mixed dust exposure at work.

Interstitial Pulmonary FibrosisOccupational ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausally Related InjuryDelivery Vehicle EnvironmentAirborne IrritantsMedical TestimonyBiopsy FindingsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohertus Trading Co. v. United Parcel Service Co.

Plaintiff Mohertus Trading Company sued defendant United Parcel Service (UPS) for $10,497, alleging loss of goods during shipping. Mohertus claims its agent mistakenly undervalued the goods at $6,000 instead of $16,000 due to an error by a UPS agent during repackaging. UPS reimbursed Mohertus $6,000, asserting full satisfaction of their contract. Mohertus seeks to recover the full $16,000, implicitly asking the court to reform the contract based on mutual mistake. The court, noting the case falls under the Carmack Amendment, found that Mohertus raised a genuine issue of fact regarding mutual mistake, making a trial necessary to determine the parties' intent and the reasonableness of the agent's reliance. Consequently, UPS's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Contract DisputeMutual MistakeSummary Judgment MotionCarrier LiabilityCarmack AmendmentInterstate ShipmentGoods LostShipping InsuranceValuation DisputeContract Reformation
References
9
Case No. 525474
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2019

Matter of Olaya v. United Parcel Serv. Inc.

Guillermo Olaya, a delivery driver, sustained three work-related injuries to his lower back, left leg, and right knee between 2009 and 2012 while working for United Parcel Service Inc. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the right knee claim and awarded temporary disability, later finding his condition schedulable. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, declining to consider Olaya's untimely supplemental submissions, and subsequently denied his application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both Board decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in rejecting the late evidence and concluding that substantial evidence, including conflicting medical testimony, supported the Board's determination that Olaya's injuries were schedulable rather than warranting continuing disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UseMaximum Medical ImprovementIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceBoard DiscretionConsequential InjuryDisability BenefitsUntimely Submissions
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thai Airways International Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V.

Plaintiff Thai Airways International, Ltd. sued defendants United Aviation Leasing B.V. and others under the civil provisions of RICO and state law, alleging unlawful conversion of security deposits and wire fraud. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. After plaintiff filed an amended complaint, defendants moved again for dismissal. The court found that while the wire fraud claim was particularized, the conversion claim against other unnamed lessees failed to meet pleading requirements. Furthermore, the eligible predicate acts were deemed insufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement for a viable RICO claim. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed without leave to replead, as the court lacked federal jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

RICO ActWire FraudCivil ProcedureRule 9(b)RacketeeringContinuity RequirementConversion of FundsSecurity DepositsAirplane LeaseJurisdiction Dismissal
References
24
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05762 [198 AD3d 1160]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2021

Vickers v. Parcells

William Vickers, the plaintiff, sued Duane Charles Parcells, the defendant, for injuries sustained after falling from a stepladder while trimming a tree on Parcells' property. Vickers alleged common-law negligence under two theories: a dangerous condition due to the ladder being placed on mulch, and a means and methods theory asserting Parcells controlled the work without providing proper equipment. The Supreme Court partially denied Parcells' motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that Parcells demonstrated he lacked supervisory control over Vickers' work and did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Therefore, the Appellate Division granted Parcells' motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismissed the complaint.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorSupervisory ControlDangerous ConditionActual NoticeConstructive NoticeStepladder AccidentTree Trimming
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. City of Buffalo

The United States moved to modify a 1979 remedial hiring decree against the City of Buffalo's police and fire departments. This decree, issued after findings of unlawful discrimination against blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans, and women, required 50% of entry-level appointments to be from qualified minority applicants. The government argued that Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts mandated an end to preferential hiring. Chief Judge Curtin denied the motion, citing the Second Circuit's decision in EEOC v. Local 638, which held that Stotts does not prohibit race-conscious relief in this context. The court emphasized that the Buffalo decree is temporary, applies only to qualified candidates, and does not involve the displacement of existing employees, distinguishing it from the Stotts case. The hiring goals will end when the City proves its selection procedures are valid.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationAffirmative ActionHiring DecreeRemedial OrderTitle VIISeniority RightsJudicial ReviewConsent DecreePublic Employment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Pszeniczny

Stanislaw Pszeniczny, an alien previously removed for an aggravated felony, was indicted for illegal reentry into the United States. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing his original removal order was invalid because his Notice to Appear (NTA) lacked a specific date and time for his hearing, citing Pereira v. Sessions. The court analyzed conflicting interpretations of Pereira and its applicability to jurisdictional issues versus the "stop-time rule." It also considered the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) for collateral attacks on removal orders. The court ultimately denied Pszeniczny's motion, finding that he received full and timely notice of his hearings and participated fully, with no prejudice or unfairness in the immigration procedure, making the Banegas Gomez v. Barr decision by the Second Circuit applicable and uncontestable.

Immigration LawIllegal ReentryRemoval OrderNotice to AppearJurisdictionDue ProcessCollateral AttackAdministrative RemediesJudicial ReviewAggravated Felony
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.

The plaintiff, Thomas Davis, a former "ramp serviceman" for United Air Lines, Inc., sued his employer following his dismissal due to a physical disability (epilepsy). He alleged wrongful dismissal in violation of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asserting a claim as a third-party beneficiary of a federal contract and a violation of a collective bargaining agreement which he claimed incorporated the Act's affirmative action provisions. Chief Judge Weinstein granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court ruled that there is no private right of action under Section 503, as established in a prior appeal concerning the same plaintiff (Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.), and that allowing a third-party beneficiary claim would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim under the collective bargaining agreement was dismissed as he failed to exhaust the mandatory Railway Labor Act procedures, and his "futility" argument was rejected.

Rehabilitation ActWrongful DismissalThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementDisability DiscriminationRailway Labor ActMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionFederal Contract LawAffirmative Action
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 20,779 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