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

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ10203862
Regular
Dec 08, 2016

EARNEST YBARRA vs. BIG 5 CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

Defendant Big 5 Corporation sought removal from a WCJ's order continuing trial to allow the applicant to supplement the medical record. The defendant argued this continuance was due to applicant's counsel's lack of diligence and violated their due process rights. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy and that the issue of attorney diligence could be addressed during attorney fee determination. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalMinute Orderpanel qualified medical examinerPQMEmedical recordsLabor Code section 5502due processReport and Recommendationcontinued trial
References
2
Case No. ADJ9549383
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

JUANA ZELEDON DE TREMINIO vs. ESPOSTOS FINE FOODS INC. dba BOX LUNCH CO.

The defendant sought removal of the WCJ's orders to reopen discovery and take the case off calendar, arguing the applicant lacked due diligence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's minute orders, and returned the case for trial without further discovery. The Board found the WCJ erred by taking the case off calendar and reopening discovery before trial, as there was no established record of deficient medical reports to justify such actions. The question of due diligence and substantial evidence should be determined based on admitted evidence at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMinute OrdersReopening DiscoveryOff CalendarDue DiligencePrejudicialIrreparably HarmfulMedical Provider Network (MPN)Continuity of Care
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2007

Price v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.

This case addresses a copyright infringement dispute over the screenplay "Dodgeball: The Movie." Plaintiffs Ernando Ashoka Thomas and David Price accused unnamed defendants of infringement. Intervening-plaintiffs Gregory James Gaugel and YNOT Visions claimed co-authorship and ownership rights. The District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that James's co-authorship claim was time-barred due to lack of due diligence. Furthermore, YNOT Visions was found to have no ownership interest as the work was not "for hire" and no written transfer of copyright existed. The court also dismissed various state law claims by the intervening-plaintiffs as either preempted by federal copyright law or lacking merit and being time-barred.

Copyright InfringementScreenplay RightsCo-Authorship DisputeSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable DoctrinesWork For Hire DoctrineState Law PreemptionEntertainment LawIntellectual Property
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2015

Matter of Miniter

This case involves a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding against attorney Francis Anthony Miniter in New York, based on a seven-year suspension imposed by the Superior Court of Connecticut. The Connecticut court found Miniter guilty of multiple violations of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct (CRPC), including lack of diligence, failure to communicate, mishandling of client funds, and failure to pay judgments. Miniter challenged the imposition of reciprocal discipline in New York, citing due process violations and infirmity of proof in the Connecticut proceedings, as well as claiming the discipline was too harsh. A Special Referee in New York found that Miniter failed to sustain his burden of proof for these defenses. The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the Special Referee's report, finding no lack of due process or infirmity of proof, and granted the application for reciprocal discipline. Consequently, Francis Anthony Miniter was suspended from practicing law in New York for five years, conditioned on his reinstatement in Connecticut.

Attorney DisciplineReciprocal DisciplineProfessional MisconductSuspension from PracticeDue ProcessGrievance CommitteeConnecticut Rules of Professional ConductClient FundsLack of DiligenceFailure to Communicate
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Lebron

This case involves an appeal concerning the permanent neglect of a child, Jason, placed in foster care in 1982 due to his parents' eviction and drug addiction. The Family Court found permanent neglect but dismissed the petitions, ruling the petitioner agency failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship. The appellate court affirmed the finding of permanent neglect, agreeing that the parents failed to plan for Jason's future or maintain regular contact. However, the court reversed the Family Court's finding on diligent efforts, concluding that the petitioner agency had, in fact, met its burden of proving diligent efforts despite the parents' chronic drug addiction and lack of cooperation. The court emphasized that an agency is not a guarantor of an uncooperative parent's success.

Permanent NeglectChild WelfareFoster CareParental RightsDiligent EffortsDrug AddictionRehabilitation ProgramsFamily Court AppealSocial Services LawParental Responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1997

LaVigna v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for discovery and to amend the complaint. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order. The claims against Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. were dismissed due to the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity rule, as plaintiff Robert LaVigna was an employee. Plaintiffs failed to show deliberate conduct to bypass this rule or wanton behavior for punitive damages. Additionally, plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. had knowledge of a defective condition causing fume seepage. The denial of additional discovery was upheld due to lack of diligence, and the motion to add J.T. Falk as a defendant was denied due to the Statute of Limitations and plaintiffs' investigative delinquency.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentDiscoveryComplaint AmendmentStatute of LimitationsUnited in Interest DoctrinePunitive DamagesPremises LiabilityFume ExposureAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority

A transgender female plaintiff commenced an action against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and an unknown employee, 'Jane Doe,' for discrimination. The summons and complaint were filed in January 2007. While NYCTA was timely served, 'Jane Doe' was identified as Lorna Smith through internal disciplinary proceedings. Plaintiff's counsel served Smith in September 2007, 233 days after filing, leading Smith to move for dismissal due to untimely service. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff an extension of the 120-day service period. This appellate court affirmed, ruling that although 'good cause' for the extension was not met due to lack of due diligence, the extension was warranted under the 'interest of justice' standard, considering the unique challenges of identifying and serving an unknown defendant, Smith's common surname, and the absence of prejudice to the defendant.

Jane DoeService of ProcessCPLR 306-bCPLR 1024Extension of Time to ServeGood Cause StandardInterest of Justice StandardUnknown Defendant IdentificationNew York City Human Rights LawPublic Authorities Law
References
62
Case No. CR-007805-25BX
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2025

People v. Jefferson M.Q.

The case addresses whether the 2025 amendments to Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law, defining 'due diligence' for discovery, apply to a certificate of compliance filed before the amendments' effective date. The defendant, charged with driving while intoxicated, moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument due to the prosecution's failure to provide Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) attachments as ordered by the court. The court determined that the 2025 amendments are procedural and remedial, thus applying to pending criminal actions regardless of when the certificate of compliance was filed. Applying the 2025 due diligence standard, the court found the People failed to exercise due diligence by making perfunctory efforts, missing statutory deadlines, delaying in requesting ordered material, and failing to explain or correct the lapse. Consequently, the court deemed the People's certificate of compliance invalid and their statement of readiness illusory. As the People exceeded their allotted speedy trial time (92 chargeable days against a 90-day limit), the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument was granted.

Discovery ComplianceDue DiligenceCertificate of ComplianceSpeedy TrialStatutory InterpretationRetroactivity of StatutesCriminal Procedure LawIAB AttachmentsMisdemeanor ChargesProsecutorial Misconduct
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tripodi v. Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

Plaintiff Anthony Tripodi initiated a lawsuit against Local Union No. 38 and its counsel, Dubin, for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case, initially filed in Connecticut, was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The central jurisdictional challenge arose from the Union's status as an unincorporated association with members in both Connecticut and New York, thereby destroying complete diversity of citizenship. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules, determined that New York law governed the substantive claims, which rendered the Union an indispensable party. Consequently, due to the lack of complete diversity and the indispensability of the Union, the court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, advising the plaintiff to seek redress in state courts where both defendants could be pursued in a single action.

Malicious ProsecutionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConnecticut Unfair Trade Practices ActSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionIndispensable PartyChoice of LawNew York LawConnecticut LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 14,330 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