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

United States v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.)

This case involves motions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) for mandatory withdrawal of reference from the Bankruptcy Court. The plaintiffs sought rulings that their claims against Johns-Manville Corporation, related to asbestos waste cleanup costs under CERCLA, were not barred by the automatic bankruptcy stay. The District Court examined whether the resolution of these adversary proceedings required substantial and material consideration of both the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11) and other federal laws, specifically CERCLA. Finding that significant interpretation of both federal statutes was necessary to determine when the claims arose and their interaction with the automatic stay, the court granted the motions.

BankruptcyWithdrawal of ReferenceCERCLAAutomatic StayEnvironmental LawFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationContributionIndemnificationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Columbia University in the City of New York

George D. Walker, a former security guard at Columbia University, sued his employer and labor union for various causes of action including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful discharge, age discrimination under New York Human Rights Law, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Walker was mandatorily retired in December 1978 at age 65, under the terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement. A new agreement, signed in July 1979, retroactively extended the mandatory retirement age to 70 as of January 1, 1979. Walker claimed he was unaware of this change until late 1987 or early 1988. The defendants, Columbia University and the Union, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Walker's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court found that a six-month statute of limitations applied to the hybrid § 301/fair representation claim and that Walker should have reasonably known about the alleged breach in 1978 or 1979, given the union's publicized meetings regarding contract negotiations. The court also denied any basis for tolling the statute of limitations, as there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment and plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the complaint, ruling that all of plaintiff's claims were time-barred.

Age DiscriminationWrongful DischargeBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationFederal Labor LawHybrid § 301 Claim
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. ADJ6855574
Regular
Mar 25, 2013

JORGE RIVERA LOPEZ vs. STONELEDGE FURNITURE, LLC, HARTFORD

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration by lien claimants whose liens were dismissed for failure to pay the mandatory lien activation fee under Labor Code §4903.06. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the dismissal mandatory and proper. The Board affirmed it lacks the authority to declare statutes unconstitutional and must enforce them as written. Therefore, the liens were correctly dismissed with prejudice for non-payment of the activation fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien activation feeSB 863Labor Code §4903.06Labor Code §4903.07Dismissal with prejudiceReconsideration deniedLien claimantsPrime Medical ResourcesInc.
References
1
Case No. ADJ9028742 ADJ9008407
Regular
May 11, 2018

JOSE ARELLANO vs. ROSS STORES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration for applicant Jose Arellano and denied it for defendant Ross Stores, Inc. The WCAB reversed the prior decision, finding that Arellano's December 6, 2012 injury claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. This reversal was based on the defendant's failure to prove compliance with mandatory notice requirements, which tolls the statute of limitations. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, while Arellano's February 8, 2013 injury claim remains unaffected.

Statute of limitationsTollingNotice requirementsLabor Code sections 35503551New and further disabilityLabor Code section 5410Affirmative defensePrejudiceReconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ6512547
Regular
Sep 16, 2011

JUAN SANDOVAL vs. MILKY WAY DAIRY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

This case concerns a dispute over a $8,177.09 balance owed to a lien claimant, Summit Surgical, for outpatient surgical services. The defendant sought reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Judge's award, arguing the lien claimant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary per *Kunz* and *Tapia*, and that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ failed to rule on the statute of limitations defense, which is a mandatory issue to address.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardWCJSummit SurgicalStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Reasonableness of Treatment
References
10
Case No. ADJ7466813
Regular
Apr 10, 2013

ROBERTO MENA, COBERTON MENA vs. PRIORITY BUILDING SERVICES; LUMBERMAN'S UNDERWRITING, PRIORITY BUILDING SERVICES, LLC; LUMBERMAN'S UNDERWRITING

This case involves a lien claimant, Max MRI Imaging, whose lien was dismissed due to failure to pay the mandatory lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the dismissal despite the claimant's argument of an oversight. The Board emphasized that the statute's language is mandatory and provides no exceptions for inadvertent non-payment. The ruling also clarified procedural arguments regarding notice, appearances, and the inapplicability of the *Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp.* case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoberto MenaPriority Building ServicesLumberman's UnderwritingADJ7466813Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.06Lien Activation FeeDismissal of LienMandatory Requirement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Hartnett

Petitioners, including National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and Humphreys & Harding, Inc., challenged a determination that the West Side Connection Project, a new railroad line in New York City, was subject to New York State's mandatory prevailing wage rate statute (Labor Law § 220). The project, involving state and federal funding, aimed to consolidate Amtrak services at Pennsylvania Station. The central issue was whether Amtrak, a private for-profit corporation, constituted a 'public agency' and if the project qualified as 'public works' under the statute. The court determined that Amtrak's activities are not government acts and the project's primary function is private, despite its public purpose and funding. Consequently, the court annulled the determination that the project was a public works and granted the petitioners' requests.

Public WorksPrevailing WageLabor LawAmtrakRailroadGovernment ContractCPLR Article 78Private Corporation StatusState FundingStatutory Interpretation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,454 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