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. ADJ7745791, ADJ7745809
Regular
Jan 14, 2014

JUAN NAVA vs. OWENS CORNING, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a previous order that intended to dismiss MD Tox Laboratories' lien. The WCAB found that MD Tox Laboratories had not actually filed a lien in the subject cases, nor were they a party at the time of the lien conference, thus rendering the dismissal order invalid. Since no lien was filed, MD Tox Laboratories was not subject to lien activation fees or obligated to appear at the conference. The WCAB clarified that MD Tox Laboratories may file a lien if it is still timely and accompanied by the proper fees.

MD Tox LaboratoriesPetition for Reconsiderationlien activation feelien conferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardnonpartyElectronic Adjudication Management Systemlien claimantLabor CodeWCAB Rule
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06751
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

All State Flooring Distributors, L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC

Plaintiff, All State Flooring Distributors, L.P., initiated legal action against MD Floors, LLC, and Michael Savino to recover $48,188.50 for wood flooring delivered. MD Floors, in turn, filed counterclaims asserting that it incurred additional labor costs due to faulty flooring and was subjected to double-billing. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing both a procedural default and the presence of triable issues of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, while correcting the Supreme Court's finding of a procedural default. The Appellate Division concurred that substantial triable issues of fact existed regarding partial payments, attorney's fees, and the alleged personal guaranty by Savino, and also affirmed the existence of triable issues concerning MD Floors' counterclaims for additional labor costs and double-billing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal GuarantyCounterclaimsProcedural DefaultAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactAttorney's FeesCommercial LawContract Dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1997

Capalbo v. Lederle Laboratories, Inc.

All Bright Electric appealed an order concerning a personal injury action. The plaintiff, an employee of All Bright Electric, was injured after falling from a ladder while drilling, leading to claims under common-law negligence. The plaintiff later sought to amend the complaint to include Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, citing unexcused delay and lack of merit. Consequently, with the common-law negligence claim already dismissed, no viable causes of action remained against Lederle Laboratories, Inc., and Lederle's third-party complaint against All Bright for common-law and contractual indemnification was dismissed. However, the court upheld the denial of All Bright's motion to dismiss Hilti Company, Inc.'s cross-claim, citing unresolved issues of fact.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationAmended ComplaintAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawDrill AccidentLadder Fall
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Song v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.

Dr. Samuel Song was terminated by Ives Laboratories, Inc., leading him to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC, which was referred to the SDHR. The SDHR dismissed his complaint for administrative convenience. Song subsequently sued, alleging national origin discrimination under federal civil rights acts and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the Section 1981 claim and the state law claim. The court granted dismissal of the Section 1981 claim, applying the precedent of Patterson v. McLean Credit Union retroactively. However, the court denied the dismissal of the Human Rights Law claim, affirming that an administrative convenience dismissal by the SDHR preserves the right to sue and that exercising pendent jurisdiction was appropriate.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1866Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964New York State Human Rights LawRetroactive Application of LawPendent JurisdictionElection of RemediesAdministrative Convenience DismissalSummary Judgment
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandhan v. Laboratory Corp. of America

Plaintiff Angela Bandhan sued her former employer, Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp.), alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis recommended granting summary judgment on failure to promote and unequal pay claims, but denying it on wrongful termination and retaliation claims. Both parties filed objections to the Report. District Judge Berman adopted the Magistrate's Report in its entirety, finding no prima facie case for failure to promote or unequal pay, but genuine issues of material fact regarding wrongful termination and retaliation, allowing those claims to proceed to trial. The Court therefore granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and directed the parties to a trial scheduling/settlement conference.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteUnequal PayWrongful Termination
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tardd v. Brookhaven National Laboratory

Malry Tarrd and Otto White sued Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and several individual employees, alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract under Title VII, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. sections 1981, 1985(3), 1986, and the NYSHRL. Plaintiffs described a hostile work environment, racial slurs, a Ku Klux Klan hood incident, and denied promotions. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on various grounds, including failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, and the federal enclave doctrine. The Court partially granted the dismissal motion, notably dismissing certain individual Section 1981 and NYSHRL claims, all Section 1985 and 1986 claims, and most breach of contract claims, while allowing Tardd's breach of settlement agreement claim to proceed. The Court also denied the defendants' motion regarding the federal enclave doctrine and rejected the plaintiffs' request for Rule 11 sanctions.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. Section 1981NYSHRLMotion to DismissJudgment on PleadingsFederal Enclave DoctrineElection of Remedies
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2004

Schramm v. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This case concerns an appeal by third-party defendants W.T. Hickey Corp. and Hickey Electric Co., Inc., from an order denying their motion to dismiss claims for common-law indemnification and contribution as premature. The defendant third-party plaintiff, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, also filed a cross-appeal. The court examined Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which limits employer liability to third parties for contribution or indemnity unless a "grave injury" is proven, and discussed the distinction between general and special employment. The appellate court found the third-party defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a special employment relationship. Consequently, the cross-appeal was dismissed as the defendant was not aggrieved, and the original order was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewCross-Appeal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1983

American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. v. North River Insurance

Vincent Yeager, an employee of American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. (American), was injured during employment, leading to a lawsuit against a machine manufacturer, who then brought a third-party action against American for indemnification. American was covered by both a workers’ compensation policy from the State Insurance Fund and a general liability policy from North River Insurance Co. North River disclaimed liability, citing exclusions for workers’ compensation obligations and bodily injury to employees. American then initiated a fourth-party action against North River for contribution. The Supreme Court initially denied American's summary judgment motion and granted North River's cross-motion to dismiss, with leave to replead for indemnification. This court reversed, holding that North River's exclusions do not insulate it from American’s claims because the employer's liability to a third-party tort-feasor for an employee's injury arises from equitable apportionment, not directly from workers' compensation law, thus granting American's motion for summary judgment and denying North River's cross-motion.

Insurance coverage disputeGeneral liability policyWorkers' compensation exclusionContribution between tort-feasorsIndemnificationSummary judgmentFourth-party actionDole-Dow doctrineEquitable apportionmentEmployer liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landon v. Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc.

This case addresses whether a drug testing laboratory can be held liable in tort to a non-contracting subject for negligent testing. The plaintiff, while on probation in Orange County, submitted an oral fluid sample that Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., falsely reported as positive for marijuana. The lab allegedly used a lower cutoff level than recommended and failed to perform a confirmatory GC/MS test, leading to an extension of the plaintiff's probation. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed, asserting that a duty of reasonable care exists due to the severe consequences of inaccurate drug test results on individuals' lives and the lack of market incentives for testing accuracy. The court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence.

Drug TestingNegligenceTort LiabilityForensic ToxicologyPrivity of ContractDuty of CareProbation ViolationFalse PositiveLaboratory StandardsCPLR 3211(a)(7)
References
101
Showing 1-10 of 93 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