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

Le Boeuf v. Newman

This case involves appeals from judgments entered upon verdicts in negligence actions for personal injuries (La Falce) and wrongful death (Le Boeuf). The appellants' liability was clearly proven. The judgment in the La Falce action was affirmed. However, the $55,000 verdict in the Le Boeuf death action, concerning a 17-year-old decedent, was deemed excessive by the court. The court determined that the pecuniary loss could not exceed $35,000 in addition to approximately $2,000 in special damages. Consequently, the judgment in the Le Boeuf action was reversed, and a new trial ordered, unless the respondent stipulates to reduce the verdict to $37,000 and interest, in which case the reduced judgment would be affirmed.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWrongful DeathExcessive VerdictDamagesPecuniary LossAppellate ReviewConditional AffirmanceJudgment ModificationNew Trial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bright v. Le Moyne College

The plaintiff, a former custodian at Le Moyne College, sued Le Moyne and her union, Teamsters Local 317, alleging sex and racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She claimed adverse employment actions including a shift change, being compelled to punch in for lunch breaks, exclusion from social events, co-workers being instructed not to speak to her, and ignored incident reports, ultimately leading to constructive discharge. The court found that her shift change did not constitute an adverse employment action and that Le Moyne had appropriate procedures for addressing her complaints. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Title VII claim against the Union due to the plaintiff's failure to name it in her EEOC charge. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentDuty of Fair RepresentationEEOC ComplaintPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionShift Rotation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

CARTIER, DIV. OF RICHEMONT v. Bertone Group

In a trademark infringement case, defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs' litigation counsel, Tal Benschar, Esq., from serving as a 30(b)(6) deposition witness, citing New York Disciplinary Rule 5-102 which addresses the advocate-witness rule. The Court denied the defendants' motion, allowing Mr. Benschar to testify. The Court acknowledged the potential for confusion and conflicting loyalties when a lawyer acts as both a witness and an advocate, but found these dangers less likely in the pre-trial context. It also considered that Mr. Benschar was in the best position to provide the requested information, having supervised the investigation. However, the Court deferred its ruling on whether Mr. Benschar’s testimony would disqualify him from subsequently serving as trial counsel, noting that another attorney would be primary trial counsel.

Trademark InfringementDiscoveryFed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)Attorney DisqualificationAdvocate-Witness RuleEthical RulesDeposition TestimonyPre-Trial ProcedureNew York LawCounsel Representation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2002

In Re the United States for Material Witness Warrant

This Opinion and Order addresses the Court's authority to investigate potential government misrepresentations in the case of Abdallah Higazy, a prospective grand jury witness. Higazy was detained as a material witness after a transceiver was allegedly found in his hotel room and he purportedly confessed during a polygraph test, both of which later proved false. The Court determined it lacked criminal contempt jurisdiction over the FBI agent's conduct but affirmed its inherent supervisory power to inquire into and publicize the truth of such misconduct. The Court ordered the Government to complete its internal investigation and report findings by October 31, 2002, while directing the unsealing of most case documents, subject to government-proposed redactions by August 9, 2002, to protect grand jury secrecy. The government's internal investigation reports were ordered to remain sealed.

Material WitnessGrand Jury InvestigationFBI MisconductFalse ConfessionJudicial Supervisory PowerCriminal ContemptUnsealing DocumentsGovernment MisrepresentationsPolygraph TestSeptember 11 Investigation
References
16
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. ADJ3002899
Regular
May 05, 2015

RAQUEL CARBAJAL vs. LE PAFE INC, PACIFIC COMP

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant, LE PAFE INC., seeks removal to overturn a rescinded order that would have resolved a lien claim for $5,000. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition, agreeing with the WCJ that the matter should be set for a new lien trial. This allows the WCJ to determine the timeliness of the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration and address the merits of the lien if appropriate. The Board's decision aims to ensure a proper record and decision are made after full review of evidence.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding DecisionWCJ JurisdictionLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingProof of ServiceCompromise and ReleaseDate of InjuryLien Trial
References
1
Case No. ADJ4571463 (AHM 0150883)
Regular
Jan 02, 2013

DANIEL LE COMPTE vs. VOLCOM, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an administrative law judge's dismissal of applicant Daniel Le Compte's case for lack of prosecution. The WCAB found no good reason to force the applicant to refile when he expressed a desire to proceed with his claim, especially given the system's policy favoring expedited and inexpensive dispute resolution. The Board emphasized the overriding policy to decide claims on their merits. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABReconsiderationDismissalLack of ProsecutionRule 10582ExpeditiousInexpensiveRescindedMeritsRelated Case
References
2
Case No. ADJ1353365
Regular
Sep 16, 2008

MARIA GUILLEN vs. LE MERIGOT HOTEL; ARROWPOINT CAPITAL CORPORATION; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL/HOLLYWOOD RENAISSANCE HOTEL

The WCAB granted reconsideration, affirming the June 25, 2008 Findings and Award but amending it to be a Joint and Several Findings and Award and appointing Le Merigot as administrator.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardJoint and SeveralLe Merigot HotelArrowpoint Capital CorporationMarriott InternationalHousekeeperIndustrial InjuryNeck Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ7785733, ADJ7632939
Regular
Oct 01, 2012

JOHN SHEK vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER OF OAKLAND, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves applicant's petitions for reconsideration and removal concerning administrative orders that sustained objections to witness subpoenas and excused a witness's appearance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petitions as intermediate orders are not subject to such review. They also denied the removal petition, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board upheld the WCJ's decision to exclude undisclosed witnesses and excuse the excused witness based on the applicant's failure to comply with discovery and witness disclosure rules.

Pro sePetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCAB RulesSubpoena Duces TecumQuash SubpoenaExcuse Witness AppearanceMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureNewly Discovered Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Jones

Corey Jones, indicted for murder of a government witness, previously had his application for bail denied. He renewed his application based on new evidence regarding his co-defendant and brother, Jason Jones. This evidence, including work and travel records, strongly contradicted the government's unidentified eye-witness testimony, which initially implicated both brothers. The Court noted that the eye-witness's identification of Jason Jones was proven inaccurate, which materially affected the credibility of the same witness's identification of Corey Jones, especially since the witness knew both brothers by name. After reviewing all evidence, including testimony from alibi witnesses and a secondary victim, the Court found that the weight of the evidence now overcomes the presumption of detention. Consequently, Corey Jones's renewed application for bail was granted, contingent on suitable conditions.

BailPretrial DetentionWitness CredibilityAlibiNew EvidenceMurder ChargeSouthern District of New YorkCriminal ProcedureFederal CourtRelease Conditions
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 849 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