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. 2014 NY Slip Op 07675
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2014

Matter of Yu F. (Fen W.)

This case involves a child neglect proceeding where the mother, Fen W., appealed from a Family Court order finding her to have neglected her child, Yu F. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the appeal, limiting its scope to the finding of neglect, as the dispositional order had expired and was made upon the mother's default. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding that the petitioner, Administration for Children's Services, proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the child due to her untreated mental illness. Testimony from a psychiatrist and a hospital social worker indicated the mother's inability to provide adequate supervision and guardianship, placing the child in imminent danger. The evidence showed the mother refused to provide care plans for the child during her hospitalization and relied on the nine-year-old child for care.

Child NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Untreated Mental IllnessParental SupervisionGuardianshipAppellate ReviewDefault JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceImminent DangerPsychosis Disorder
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04673 [241 AD3d 726]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

Shujing Yu v. Mask Pot, Inc.

In this putative class action, Shujing Yu sought unpaid overtime wages from Mask Pot, Inc., BK Spice World, Inc., and several individuals, alleging they operated as joint employers and a single enterprise. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding sufficient allegations that BK Spice, Hui Fang, and Wei Zhao were employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Labor Law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, holding that the complaint adequately pleaded both functional control and a single integrated enterprise under the economic reality test.

Overtime WagesFair Labor Standards ActLabor LawJoint EmployersEconomic Reality TestSingle EnterpriseAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissSufficiency of PleadingFunctional Control
References
38
Case No. ADJ1764832 (SFO 0511779)
Regular
Jun 16, 2010

PATRICK YU vs. NEIMAN MARCUS, LIBERTY MUTUAL SACRAMENTO

This case involves applicant Patrick Yu's workers' compensation claim against Neiman Marcus, insured by Liberty Mutual. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order denying Yu's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge in its decision. Therefore, the applicant's request for reconsideration of the prior ruling has been formally denied.

Order Denying ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardNeiman MarcusLiberty MutualADJ1764832SFO 0511779Petition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge ReportWCJApplicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ10373093
Regular

LAN YU vs. RCS, INCORPORATED, WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying this extraordinary remedy. Reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy should a final adverse decision issue later. Therefore, both petitions were dismissed and denied, respectively.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2010

Zhu Wei Shi v. Jun Lan Zhang

The plaintiff, hired to repair a damaged garage door at the defendants' three-family dwelling, suffered personal injuries after falling from an allegedly old, shaky, and unsteady ladder that twisted, bent, and collapsed. He initiated an action against the homeowners, including Bi Yu Zhang, asserting claims under common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), but the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the collapse of the ladder constituted a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The defendants failed to present a triable issue of fact, leading to the granting of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability.

Ladder AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryHomeowner LiabilityDefective EquipmentProximate CauseAppellate DivisionNew York LawQueens County
References
9
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04008 [150 AD3d 1505]
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Claim of Jie Cao v. Five Star Travel of NY Inc.

Norman Lan Chen, a bus driver, was involved in a 2007 bus accident. He successfully applied for workers' compensation benefits, and the Workers' Compensation Board found Five Star Travel of NY Inc. (his employer) to be uninsured and liable for awards. A settlement agreement was approved by the Board in October 2011. In May 2015, Five Star Travel of NY Inc. sought to reopen the claim and revisit the settlement approval, but the Board denied the application. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that no material new evidence was presented and the application was untimely. The court also held that the Board was correct in declining to revisit the previously approved Workers' Compensation Law § 32 settlement agreement.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppealClaim ReopeningSettlement AgreementUninsured EmployerTimelinessJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionBus Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2004

Conde v. Yeshiva University

This case addresses an appeal from an order denying Yeshiva University's (YU) motion to dismiss a complaint. The court determined that the plaintiffs were not required to arbitrate their employment discrimination claims, as their collective bargaining agreement did not clearly waive their statutory right to a judicial forum. The court modified the initial order, dismissing several causes of action against YU, including those for negligent hiring, supervision, training, retention of an unfit employee, vicarious assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The negligent hiring and retention claims were dismissed due to the exclusivity of remedy under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Additionally, assault and battery claims were dismissed because the employee acted beyond the scope of employment, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed given that remedies were preserved in the surviving statutory claims for sexual harassment and retaliation.

Employment DiscriminationArbitration WaiverCollective Bargaining AgreementNegligent HiringVicarious LiabilityAssault and BatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityRespondeat SuperiorScope of Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Yu-Thompson

The mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Westchester County, which granted the father's petition for therapeutic visitation with their minor child. The appellate court modified the order to include a provision directing both the father and the child to submit to individual therapy, with the father bearing the costs exceeding insurance coverage. As modified, the order was affirmed. The court found that supervised therapeutic visitation was in the child's best interests and had a sound basis in the record. Additionally, the court clarified its authority to order counseling as a component of visitation, correcting an erroneous belief held by the lower court.

therapeutic visitationfamily lawchild's best interestappellate reviewjudicial discretioncounselingpsychological evaluationsLaw Guardianvisitation rightsFamily Court Act
References
13
Case No. ADJ10357068
Regular
Jan 31, 2020

QING YU vs. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal regarding an order compelling a medical re-evaluation, rescinding the original order. The applicant was denied due process because the compelling order lacked proof of service and she was not afforded a hearing to present evidence on her allegations concerning defendant's actions. The Board remanded the matter for further proceedings and recommended the trial judge consider the submitted Compromise and Release settlement.

WCABQing YuPacific Gas & ElectricPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Jeffrey L. Gould M.D.Petition to Compel Medical ExaminationDefective ServiceDue Process
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2017

Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc.

This Opinion and Order addresses a divided question among district courts: whether settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offers of judgment require judicial or Department of Labor (DOL) approval. Citing the Second Circuit's reasoning in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the court concludes that such approval is indeed necessary. The decision emphasizes the FLSA's purpose of protecting employees from unequal bargaining power and the potential for abuse in private settlements. The court argues that FLSA claimants lack the capacity to enter binding agreements without court or DOL oversight. The order is certified for interlocutory appeal due to the substantial ground for difference of opinion on this controlling question of law among courts in the Circuit.

FLSARule 68Judicial ApprovalSettlement AgreementDepartment of LaborWorkers' RightsEmployment LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSecond CircuitDistrict Court Decision
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 19 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