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. 94 Civ. 2336
Regular Panel Decision

Mohamed v. Marriott International, Inc.

Ahmed Mohamed, a profoundly deaf individual, sued Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Corporation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law for wrongful discharge. Marriott moved for summary judgment, arguing Mohamed should be judicially estopped from asserting an ADA claim because he had previously applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (SSDI), stating he was unable to work. The court denied Marriott's motion. It ruled that judicial estoppel was inappropriate given the differing legal standards between ADA and SSDI, the nature of SSDI administrative determinations (paper application for a listed disability), and the policy goals of the ADA which encourage disabled individuals to seek employment. The court found ample evidence that Mohamed was able to perform the essential functions of his job.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Judicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationSocial Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)New York State Human Rights LawEmployment LawQualified Individual with a DisabilityReasonable AccommodationDeafness
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2017

Ridge v. Berryhill

Plaintiff Mark Ridge challenged the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability benefits. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously determined that Ridge had the residual functional capacity to perform light work, finding him not disabled. The Appeals Council denied Ridge's request for review, making the ALJ's decision final. Ridge moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the Commissioner cross-moved. The Court denied both motions and remanded the case to the ALJ for further proceedings. The Court found the ALJ failed to adequately explain his determination that Ridge's impairments did not meet the listing requirements of Section 1.04A and failed to properly evaluate medical evidence, specifically by not providing good reasons for discounting treating physicians' opinions and by over-relying on a non-examining medical expert's opinion and the ALJ's own observations.

Social Security Disability BenefitsDisability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Treating Physician RuleMedical Expert OpinionLumbar RadiculopathyDegenerative Disc DiseaseFacet ArthritisCervical Spine Injury
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marriott In-Flite Services, A Division of Marriott Corp. v. Local 504, Air Transport Division, Transport Workers of America

Marriott In-Flite Services sued Local 504 under the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging the union engaged in an unlawful secondary boycott by picketing KLM facilities to force Marriott to cease doing business with KLM. Marriott provided in-flight meals to KLM, which was embroiled in a labor dispute with Local 504 over the closure of KLM's commissary. Local 504 picketed the commissary, which Marriott had leased, believing Marriott was performing 'struck work' and was an 'ally' of KLM, not a neutral third party. The court found that Marriott was not an innocent bystander but an ally of KLM, as it undertook work previously done by striking employees. Therefore, Local 504's actions did not constitute an unfair labor practice, and the court dismissed Marriott's damages claim, entering judgment in favor of the defendant union.

Labor Management Relations ActSecondary BoycottUnfair Labor PracticeAlly DoctrinePrimary PicketingUnion DisputeStruck WorkLabor LawLMRAAirport Services
References
4
Case No. ADJ8377055
Regular
Dec 13, 2012

MARIA PEREZ vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

This case involves a petition for removal filed by a party in **Maria Perez v. Marriott International; Marriott Claims Services**. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued an order dismissing this petition. The dismissal is due to the petitioner's withdrawal of their request for removal. Therefore, the Board has formally closed the matter regarding the petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantMarriott InternationalMarriott Claims ServicesADJ8377055San Jose District OfficeDecision November 13 2012
References
0
Case No. ADJ1210279 (RIV 0062927)
Regular
Sep 03, 2010

EXENA DONOVAN vs. MARRIOTT SHDOW RIDGE RESORT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Exena Donovan's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCALJ), finding no basis to overturn the original decision. The specific reasons for the denial are detailed in the WCALJ's report, which was not provided in this excerpt. Consequently, the applicant's request for the WCAB to review and alter the previous ruling has been rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardExena DonovanMarriott Shadow Ridge ResortPermissibly Self-InsuredPetition for ReconsiderationDenying ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeReport of WCJIncorporated ReportADJ1210279
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1968

Claim of Fries v. Ridge Lumber, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision. The Board affirmed a compensation award for accidental frostbite of both feet for claimant Fries, a truck driver for Ridge Lumber, Inc., from January 12, 1968, to April 8, 1968. However, the Board rescinded payments after this date and restored the claim for further proceedings regarding subsequent disability. The appellants contended that temperatures were higher than claimed and noted a lack of medical evidence regarding causal relationship. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the claim for further proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of medical testimony on causal relation.

Workers' CompensationFrostbiteCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsTruck DriverYard WorkerRemittalAppellate DivisionBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ3885934 (ANA 0349373)
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

SAUL GONZALEZ vs. REMEDY TEMP/CIGA FOR RELIANCE IN LIQUIDATION, MARRIOTT CORPORATION/MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, reversing a prior decision that found no jurisdiction to hear CIGA's claim for reimbursement. The WCAB determined it retains supplemental jurisdiction over disputes between defendants, like CIGA and Marriott, even after the injured worker's case was dismissed for lack of prosecution. This decision recognizes that the dismissal was intended to address the applicant's failure to prosecute, not to extinguish CIGA's independent right to seek reimbursement from Marriott. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on CIGA's reimbursement claim.

CIGAReimbursementJurisdictionDismissalReconsiderationSupplemental JurisdictionContributionSpecial EmploymentLack of ProsecutionStipulation
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06248 [199 AD3d 1362]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2021

Branch v. 1908 W. Ridge Rd, LLC

Plaintiff Shawntrell Branch sought damages for injuries sustained during roof replacement work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Monroe County, initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and partially denied the defendants' cross-motion. However, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff's back injury, which occurred while lifting a metal structure a few inches, did not constitute an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). The Court concluded that the injury arose from a routine workplace risk, not a pronounced risk due to elevation differentials, and consequently dismissed the amended complaint against the defendants-appellants.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related hazardsSummary judgmentRoofing workBack injuryConstruction siteRoutine workplace riskGravityAppellate reviewDismissal of complaint
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

THOMAS, PIA v. DUNKIRK RESORT PROPERTIES, LLC

Plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages for injuries sustained during employment at a hotel owned by defendant Dunkirk Resort Properties, LLC (Dunkirk Resort) and managed by her employer, nonparty S & K Hospitality, LLC (S & K). The Supreme Court erred in granting Dunkirk Resort's motion for summary judgment. The court rejected the out-of-possession landlord standard as applied by the lower court because no leasehold was created by the agreement between Dunkirk Resort and S & K; rather, it was a management agreement. Additionally, Dunkirk Resort's submissions raised a triable issue of fact regarding its out-of-possession landlord status. Furthermore, Dunkirk Resort failed to establish the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity provision, as triable issues of fact remain concerning whether Dunkirk Resort is the alter ego of S & K, given their distinct purposes, bank accounts, and tax returns despite shared members.

Summary JudgmentOut-of-Possession LandlordAlter EgoManagement AgreementLease Operating AgreementPremises LiabilityCorporate VeilEmployment InjuryAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of Fact
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2012

Blue Ridge Investments, LLC v. Republic of Argentina

Petitioner Blue Ridge Investments, L.L.C. sought to confirm an arbitral award against the Republic of Argentina. The award, initially in favor of CMS Gas Transmission Company for $133.2 million, was issued by an ICSID tribunal and later assigned to Blue Ridge. Argentina moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), and for failure to state a claim. The court denied Argentina's motion, finding subject matter jurisdiction based on Argentina's implied waiver of immunity as a signatory to the ICSID Convention (28 U.S.C. §§ 1605(a)(1) and (6)). The court also rejected arguments that Blue Ridge, as an assignee, lacked authority, that the claims were barred by res judicata, or were time-barred, applying New York’s 20-year statute of limitations for enforcing money judgments.

ArbitrationArbitral AwardICSID ConventionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIASubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionImplied WaiverRes JudicataStatute of Limitations
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 172 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