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
Feb 15, 2012

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Plaintiff City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System initiated a securities class action against Lockheed Martin Corp. and three executives, alleging intentional false and misleading statements regarding the performance of Lockheed Martin’s Information Systems & Global Systems division. The defendants moved to dismiss all counts. The court denied the motion to dismiss Count I, a claim of securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, finding sufficient allegations of falsity, materiality, and scienter, particularly for executive Linda Gooden. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss Counts II and III, asserting control person liability, due to the plaintiff's failure to present a plausible alternative theory where defendants were not primary violators. This memorandum details the reasons for these rulings.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPSLRASafe HarborBespeaks Caution DoctrineScienterMaterialityCore Operations DoctrineGroup Pleading
References
47
Case No. ADJ1128865 (VNO 0244369), ADJ1909887 (VNO 0181430)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

JOE NAVARRO vs. LOCKHEED MARTIN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision regarding Joe Navarro's claims against Lockheed Martin. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report, which found Navarro to be an unreliable historian with significant symptom magnification. Consequently, the Board denied injury claims for heart and high blood pressure, and upheld a 27% permanent disability award for a psyche injury, based on the judge's credibility findings.

ADJ1128865ADJ1909887plastic parts fabricatorplastic parts fabricator supervisorcontinuous traumapsyche injurypermanent disabilitynon-industrial apportionmentcredible historiansymptom magnification
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05204
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2025

People v. Martin

David Martin was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the third degree after a jury trial. On appeal, Martin challenged his convictions, arguing violations of the Second Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and contesting the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the judgment. The court found that Martin lacked standing to assert facial and as-applied challenges to Penal Law § 265.03 (3), and his arguments failed on the merits. It also determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen did not invalidate New York's entire licensing scheme or the permissive presumption under Penal Law § 265.15 (4). Furthermore, the court concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove intent to use a loaded firearm unlawfully under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The denial of Martin's CPL 30.30 motion was also deemed proper.

Criminal Possession of WeaponSecond DegreeAssault Third DegreeSecond Amendment ChallengeStandingAs-Applied ChallengeFacial ChallengePenal Law § 265.03Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of Evidence
References
17
Case No. ADJ4482163 (VNO 0264880)
Regular
Apr 05, 2010

CHARLES THOMPSON vs. LOCKHEED MARTIN, Employers Mutual of Wausau Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Wausau's petition for reconsideration to correct a coverage date error, finding Wausau's insurance coverage ended before the applicant's last year of injurious exposure. Consequently, Wausau was dismissed as a party defendant, and Lockheed Martin, self-insured and administered by Helmsman, was found solely liable for benefits. Helmsman's petition for reconsideration was denied due to its inadequacy and failure to comply with procedural rules. The original award of 83% permanent disability and need for future medical care was otherwise affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLockheed MartinHelmsman Management ServicesEmployers Mutual of Wausau Insurance Companyindustrial injurypsychelungsneurologic systemcognitive dysfunctionpermanent disability
References
1
Case No. SBR 0283205, SBR 0267402
Regular
Dec 11, 2007

PHILLIP F. GARCIA vs. LOCKHEED MARTIN AIRCRAFT SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured, ESIS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE (ADM./ADJ. AGT.)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for total permanent disability, which combined the effects of a 1995 shoulder/arm/hand injury and a 1998 bilateral shoulder/upper extremity injury. The defendant, Lockheed Martin, argued that separate awards were required as the injuries became permanent and stationary at different times and affected different body parts. The Board rescinded the award and returned the case to the trial level to await a forthcoming en banc decision on the applicability of the Wilkinson doctrine regarding combined permanent disability awards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLockheed Martin Aircraft ServicesPermissibly Self-InsuredESISTravelers InsurancePhillip F. GarciaFurther Supplemental Findings and AwardTotally Permanently Disabled1995 injury1998 injury
References
1
Case No. CV-23-2140
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Zenia Martin

Claimant Zenia Martin appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying her request for an extreme hardship redetermination. Martin, who sustained work injuries in 2010 and was later classified with a permanent partial disability, sought reclassification to a permanent total disability based on extreme financial hardship under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). Initially granted by a WCLJ, the WCB modified the decision, finding she failed to demonstrate extreme hardship. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that substantial evidence did not support the WCB's finding, as Martin's essential monthly expenses would significantly exceed her income upon the termination of her workers' compensation benefits, making her unable to cover basic necessities. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Extreme Hardship RedeterminationPermanent Total Disability ReclassificationFinancial HardshipWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAppellate Division ReviewLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityIndemnity BenefitsSocial Security Disability IncomeAdoption SubsidyMonthly Expenses Deficit
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Matter of Martin (Trucking Support Servs., LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Anthony Martin, a truck driver, filed for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor determined he was an employee of Trucking Support Services, LLC (TSS) and Distribution Cooperative Network of NY (DCN) under the New York State Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act. TSS and DCN contested this, arguing Martin was an independent contractor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the initial determinations, finding Martin to be an employee. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that TSS and DCN failed to overcome the statutory presumption of employment and that the Fair Play Act was not preempted by federal law.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorCommercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play ActEmployee ClassificationLabor LawStatutory Presumption of EmploymentABC TestSeparate Business Entity TestFederal Aviation Administration Authorization ActPreemption
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07503
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2020

Martin v. City of New York

Nicholas Martin sued the City of New York after sustaining personal injuries from a fall on a roadway in the Bronx, alleging the City's negligent repair work created the hazardous condition. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not receive prior written notice of the defect as required by the Pothole Law. Martin contended that prior written notice was not necessary because the City's affirmative act of negligence caused the defect. The Appellate Division, First Department, found that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the City's repair work immediately created the dangerous condition. Consequently, the court reversed the Supreme Court's decision granting summary judgment to the City and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryRoadway DefectMunicipal LiabilityPrior Written NoticeAffirmative NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBronx CountySlip and FallCity of New York
References
13
Case No. 2013-1699 Q CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2016

People v. Martin (Gregory)

Gregory Martin appealed two judgments from the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, for attempted criminal contempt in the second degree, based on violations of an order of protection. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction related to conduct between July 19-22, 2011, finding sufficient legal evidence. However, the judgment for conduct on September 23, 2011, was reversed and dismissed because the verdict was deemed against the weight of the evidence due to witness testimony discrepancies. The court also upheld the amendment of the date in the prosecutor's information, citing CPL 100.45 (2) and 200.70.

Criminal ContemptOrder of ProtectionAttempted Criminal ContemptSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewAmendment of Accusatory InstrumentRosario PacketProsecutor's InformationWitness Testimony
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08589 [156 AD3d 1031]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

Matter of Martins v. DiNapoli

Petitioner Fred Martins, a state trooper, sought accidental disability retirement benefits for two separate knee injuries sustained in November 2012 and July 2013. The first occurred while playing basketball during training, and the second from tripping on a tile at a dimly lit dispatch center. Respondent Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, denied both applications, concluding that neither incident constituted an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed this determination, finding substantial evidence that the injuries resulted from risks that could have been reasonably anticipated or were due to the petitioner's own misstep, and thus were not accidental injuries within the meaning of the law. The court noted that injuries from activities in ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event, or from readily observable and anticipated conditions, do not qualify as accidental.

Accidental Disability RetirementState TrooperKnee InjuryTrip and FallBasketball InjuryAnticipated RiskOrdinary EmploymentCPLR Article 78Disability BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 286 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