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
Mar 04, 1996

Javid v. Scott

Plaintiffs Eleanor Javid (as administratrix of Tige Javid's estate) and Kamal and Eleanor Javid (Tige's parents) filed a § 1983 action against Officer Edward Scott and the Village of Monroe, alleging excessive deadly force by Scott and inadequate screening/training policies by the Village. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Scott's actions were shielded by qualified immunity and the Village had no valid § 1983 claim against it. The court denied summary judgment regarding claims against Scott, citing genuine issues of material fact concerning the objective reasonableness of his use of deadly force. Initially deferring consideration of claims against the Village for discovery, the court later dismissed these claims with prejudice after plaintiffs announced their discontinuation. The decision allows the claims against Scott to proceed to trial, while absolving the Village of liability in this specific action.

Excessive forcePolice misconductQualified immunitySummary judgmentFourth AmendmentSection 1983Deadly forceMunicipal liabilityRespondeat superiorConstitutional rights
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1995

Scott v. Dime Sav. Bank of New York, FSB

The Scotts (Evelyn A. Scott and Leon Scott) sued The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB (Dime) for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. A jury found in favor of the Scotts on the breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, awarding $36,000, and assigning 54% fault to the Scotts for negligence. The Dime moved for judgment as a matter of law to dismiss these claims and for summary judgment on its counterclaim for mortgage foreclosure. The court denied the Dime's motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, upholding the jury's verdict due to evidence of a fiduciary relationship beyond a simple debtor-creditor, arising from the Dime's promotion of investments through its affiliate, Invest. The court granted the Dime's motion for foreclosure on the Scotts' mortgage, conditional on Mrs. Scott receiving a life tenancy. The court reasoned that the $36,000 damages pertained to investment losses, not the loan's validity, and the Scotts were in default. The awarded damages were set off against the amounts owed on the counterclaim.

Fiduciary Duty BreachNegligence ClaimsMortgage ForeclosureStock Market InvestmentsGlass-Steagall Act ImplicationsBank Affiliate LiabilityJury Verdict ReviewJudgment as Matter of LawEquitable DefensesPro Se Representation
References
29
Case No. ADJ6500027
Regular
Jun 22, 2009

MARK SCOTT vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a finding that applicant Mark Scott sustained an industrial injury to his left knee. The Board found that the medical evidence presented, specifically operative reports, lacked any causation analysis and therefore did not substantially support the finding of industrial injury. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial level for further development of the medical record concerning causation. The Board also deferred ruling on the statute of limitations defense pending this further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSouthern California EdisonMark ScottAOE/COEStatute of LimitationsContinuous TraumaCumulative InjuryLabor Code Section 5405Reynolds v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Statute of Limitations Tolling
References
23
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05319 [119 AD3d 766]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Siekkeli v. Mark Mariani, Inc.

In an action for personal injuries, plaintiff Mika P. Siekkeli was allegedly injured while working at Mark Mariani, Inc., when a heavy door fell on him. He sued Mariani and Mark Varley. Mariani then filed a third-party action against its insurance broker, Frank Crystal & Co., alleging inadequate coverage. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment motions by Varley and Mariani, citing triable issues regarding Siekkeli's employment status, but granted Crystal's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed the order, finding that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine employment status and that the Supreme Court erred in granting Crystal's motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentInsurance Broker NegligenceThird-Party ActionEmployment StatusPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewCoverage DenialIndependent Contractor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians & Employers' Pension Fund v. Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund, brought suit against Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc. seeking an audit of payroll records from 1992-1994 to verify pension fund contributions. Steven Scott moved for summary judgment, asserting that fifteen prior settlement agreements with William Moriarity, a Pension Fund Trustee and Local 802 President, fully settled all monetary claims. The court found that Steven Scott reasonably relied on Moriarity's apparent authority, and the Pension Fund's actions, including cashing checks and failing to repudiate the agreements, established equitable estoppel and ratification. Consequently, the court granted Steven Scott's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Pension Fund was bound by the agreements and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

ERISALMRAPension FundEquitable EstoppelApparent AuthorityRatificationSettlement AgreementsSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsUnion
References
21
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Ronald Caiazzo, Jr. sued Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., Julia Coen, and Ana Reyes for personal injuries sustained while installing an air conditioning system at a house owned by Julia Coen. Caiazzo fell from a makeshift step, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims against Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., and Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Julia Coen, citing the homeowner exemption for Coen. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc. on the common-law negligence claim, granting dismissal. The denial of summary judgment for Julia Coen on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was affirmed, as triable issues of fact remained regarding her notice of a dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of Scott v. R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc.

Paul W. Scott, a part-time body repairman, died from an injury sustained while working on a car for R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found an employer-employee relationship, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, concluding Scott was an independent contractor. R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc. and its carrier appealed the Board's determination. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that Scott operated as an independent contractor due to factors like lack of supervision, working on his own schedule, providing his own tools, and receiving a fixed payment upon completion. The court highlighted that no single factor is conclusive in determining an employment relationship.

employment relationshipindependent contractorworkers' compensationaccidental deathscope of employmentcontrol testmethod of paymentfurnishing equipmentright to dischargeappellate review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Mark C.H.

This case addresses whether New York's SCPA article 17-A, governing guardianship for persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, meets constitutional standards without requiring periodic reporting and review. The facts involve Mark C.H., an adult with profound autism and mental retardation, for whom a $3 million trust existed but whose guardians (petitioner, his late mother's attorney, and a corporate bank) initially failed to use funds for his benefit, leading to suboptimal care. The court, applying the Mathews v Eldridge test and considering international human rights norms, found that the significant infringement on a ward's liberty interests necessitates periodic oversight. Consequently, the court held that article 17-A must be read to include a requirement for yearly reporting and judicial review for guardians of the person. The guardianship for Mark C.H. was granted to the petitioner with this new yearly reporting obligation.

GuardianshipDue ProcessMental RetardationDevelopmental DisabilitiesSCPA Article 17-APeriodic ReviewWard's RightsTrust Funds MismanagementMedical Care AccessConstitutional Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2018

Hong-Bao Ren v. Gioia St. Marks, LLC

Plaintiff Hong-Bao Ren sustained injuries while working on a kitchen renovation project at a restaurant leased by Eight Oranges Inc. from landlord Gioia St. Marks, LLC. Ren fell while attempting to remove a ventilator, on which he was standing, after it detached from the wall, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide proper safety devices. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting Ren partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Gioia and Eight Oranges. The court determined that the ventilator was not a safety device and that an inadequate ladder was provided, preventing safe work. Additionally, conditional summary judgment for contractual indemnification was granted to Gioia against Eight Oranges, based on an unambiguous indemnification clause in their lease agreement.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Elevation-Related RiskSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationLandlord-Tenant LeaseDemolition WorkSafety Device FailureWorkplace FallAppellate ReviewAbsolute Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2017

United States v. Scott

Mr. Scott, a 46-year-old African American male from Queens, New York, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin. He was involved in a drug trafficking organization in Queens. His addiction to heroin stemmed from prescription painkillers for a knee injury. On March 2, 2017, he was sentenced to time-served (approximately 20 months), three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. The court considered the nature of the offense, the defendant's characteristics, and the advisory sentencing guidelines, emphasizing parsimony in incarceration due to the defendant's acceptance of responsibility, stable family, and job prospects.

Conspiracy to DistributeHeroin TraffickingSentencing GuidelinesDrug AddictionPrescription Opioid MisuseSupervised ReleaseCriminal History Category VIAcceptance of ResponsibilityCareer OffenderFederal Sentencing
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 547 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