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

Miro v. Plaza Construction Corp.

This dissenting opinion argues for affirming partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, who was injured after falling from a ladder partially covered with fireproofing material. The dissent contends that a statutory violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and proximate cause were demonstrated as a matter of law, disputing the majority's view that the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause. The opinion highlights that the plaintiff complained about the defective ladder and there was no proof of readily available substitute ladders on site, distinguishing the facts from Robinson v East Med. Ctr., LP. It criticizes the majority's interpretation of 'readily available' as unworkable and an improper shift of responsibility from owners and general contractors to workers.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Ladder accidentProximate causeSole proximate causeSafety devicesConstruction site accidentDissenting opinionSummary judgmentAppellate reviewWorker safety
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

This opinion and order by District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin addresses a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal regarding the "baseball exemption" from antitrust liability. The MLB Defendants, joined by Television Defendants, sought to appeal an earlier ruling from August 8, 2014, which held that the Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball was not shielded by the baseball exemption in cases like Laumann v. National Hockey League and Garber v. Major League Baseball. The court denies the motion, finding no substantial ground for difference of opinion on the baseball exemption's applicability, nor would an immediate appeal materially advance the litigation's termination. Furthermore, the court clarifies that the scope of the baseball exemption is a threshold merits issue, not a jurisdictional question.

Interlocutory AppealSummary JudgmentAntitrust LiabilityBaseball ExemptionSherman ActControlling Question of LawSubstantial Ground for Difference of OpinionMaterially Advance LitigationJurisdictional IssueMerits Issue
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chen v. Major League Baseball

John Chen sued Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. and the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (MLB) under the FLSA and NYLL, claiming minimum wage violations for his unpaid volunteer work during the 2013 Baseball All Star Game's "FanFest". He sought conditional class certification. MLB moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Chen was a volunteer and that FanFest, as a seasonal "amusement or recreational establishment," was exempt from FLSA minimum wage requirements. The court granted MLB's motion to dismiss the FLSA claims, finding that FanFest qualified for the Section 13(a)(3) exemption due to its short operational period and status as a distinct physical place of business. Consequently, Chen's motion for collective certification was denied as moot, and his state-law NYLL claims were dismissed without prejudice.

FLSA ExemptionMinimum Wage ClaimsVolunteer EmploymentSeasonal OperationsDistinct Physical Place of BusinessEnterprise vs EstablishmentClass Action DenialState Law Claims DismissalJudicial DiscretionStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Subway Surface Supervisors Ass'n v. New York City Transit Authority

Justice Abdus-Salaam dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that the petition should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The dissent contends that Civil Service Law § 115, upon which the majority bases its order for a hearing, merely enunciates a policy and does not provide an enforceable statutory right or a cognizable claim for violation. The opinion highlights that all cited case law supports this interpretation and that the majority has failed to identify any precedent recognizing a cause of action under § 115. Furthermore, the dissent rejects the petitioner's Equal Protection Clause claim regarding wages established through collective bargaining, asserting that unions cannot seek judicial intervention to impose wage scales not agreed upon during negotiations. The dissent maintains that collective bargaining agreements, even if they result in wage disparities, are generally upheld, provided they meet valid state objectives.

Civil Service LawEqual Pay for Equal WorkCollective BargainingDissenting OpinionStatutory InterpretationPolicy EnforcementJudicial ReviewEqual Protection ClauseWage DisparityEmployment Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tzolis v. Wolff

The dissent argues that the majority overstepped its bounds by judicially creating a right for Limited Liability Company (LLC) members to bring derivative actions, a right that the New York Legislature explicitly considered and rejected during the enactment of the LLC Law in 1994. Justice Read highlights the legislative history, demonstrating that while the Assembly initially included derivative action provisions in proposed LLC bills, the Senate consistently omitted them, leading to a deliberate legislative compromise that excluded such rights from the final statute. The dissent criticizes the majority's justification based on existing common law and analogies to other business entities, asserting that there is no settled law regarding derivative suits for LLCs, which are a relatively new statutory form. Citing precedents, Justice Read emphasizes the Court's consistent deference to legislative intent, particularly when proposed statutory language is omitted. The dissenting opinion concludes that the majority has effectively rewritten the law, undermining legislative prerogative and providing a remedy unfettered by the safeguards typically imposed by the Legislature.

Limited Liability Companies (LLCs)Derivative SuitsLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationJudicial ActivismAppellate ProcedureBusiness LawCorporate GovernancePartnership LawCommon Law Equity
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Major v. New York State Court of Claims

Judge Charles T. Major, a New York Court of Claims Judge, experienced an unusual increase in his workload starting in January 1962, working extended hours and forgoing usual breaks to clear a significant backlog of cases. This intense period culminated in his hospitalization on June 30, 1962, due to pulmonary edema or congestive heart failure, leading to his death the following day. The Workmen’s Compensation Board affirmed an award of death benefits to his widow, concluding that his death resulted from an industrial accident due to the undue anxiety, strain, and mental stress from his work. Medical experts offered conflicting opinions on the causal relationship between his work and death, but the Board accepted the claimant's expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing precedents that recognize mental stress as a compensable cause of injury.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndustrial AccidentMental StressUndue AnxietyJudicial WorkloadCausally Related DeathMedical OpinionAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
12
Case No. ADJ3321482 (SAC 0347549)
Regular
May 29, 2012

MARYLOU SMITH vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for sinus injuries allegedly caused by workplace mold exposure. The defendant, County of Sacramento, sought reconsideration after an administrative law judge found the injury AOE/COE, relying on the applicant's treating physician's opinion. The defendant argued that the agreed medical examiner's opinion should have prevailed and that there was insufficient evidence of a materially greater workplace mold exposure. The majority of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the treating physician's opinion persuasive and sufficiently supported by medical evidence.

Agreed Medical ExaminerCausationMold ExposureFungal SinusitisIndustrial InjuryOccupational NexusMedical ProbabilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Rourke v. Long

This dissenting opinion addresses a case involving an underage newsboy, Christopher O’Rourke, who sued a newspaper for negligence after being injured. The core legal questions centered on whether the newspaper violated a statute, thereby being negligent, and whether O'Rourke's injury occurred "in the course of his employment," which would relegate him to workers' compensation. The trial court dismissed the negligence claim due to a lack of proximate cause, a decision the majority affirmed. The dissent argues that both proximate cause and the "in the course of employment" questions are factual issues for a jury to decide, criticizing the majority's view on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Board for such factual determinations.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationProximate CauseEmployment LawJurisdictionTrial ProcedureDissenting OpinionUnderage EmploymentStatutory ViolationJury Question
References
19
Case No. ADJ865311 (LAO 0880913)
Regular
Sep 19, 2016

MARIA AGUILERA vs. COLLINS CHIROPRACTIC GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision to reduce her permanent disability from $100\%$ to $88\%$ after apportionment. The Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinions unsubstantial and contrary to the well-reasoned opinions of the Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs). Specifically, the Board rejected Dr. Bluestone's opinion due to a failure to account for duplication in impairment factors between rheumatologic and psychiatric conditions. While one Commissioner dissented, believing the applicant to be $100\%$ permanently disabled based on Dr. Bluestone's findings and other evidence, the majority upheld the apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Order Denying Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs)Dr. BluestoneDr. FreemanDr. MajcherDr. Fedder
References
3
Case No. ADJ1337074 (GRO 0034564) ADJ1286218 (GRO 0034565)
Regular
Jun 24, 2009

Dave Gerletti vs. SANTA MARIA AIRPORT DISTRICT, GREGORY BRAGG STOCKTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Dave Gerletti's petition for reconsideration of an award for a cumulative trauma injury to his cervical spine and lungs. The original award found 35% permanent disability, apportioning 50% of the cervical spine disability to non-industrial factors based on a Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinion of degenerative changes. The majority affirmed the WCJ's reliance on this opinion, finding it adequately explained. A dissenting opinion argued the QME's apportionment was speculative and improperly based on age and genetics, recommending an unapportioned award for the cervical spine injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardcumulative traumacervical spinelungspermanent disabilityapportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical Examinerarthritic degenerationnon-industrial factors
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 19,013 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