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. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tahini Investments, Ltd. v. Bobrowsky

Plaintiff appealed two orders concerning a purchase-money mortgage and alleged misrepresentation during the sale of a 93-acre farm. Defendant, the seller, had represented the property as a horse farm, but industrial waste drums were later discovered. Plaintiff claimed defendant knew of the dumping site and failed to disclose it, constituting actionable misrepresentation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, denying knowledge and citing a disclaimer clause in the contract. The appellate court found triable issues of fact, stating that concealment of material facts can be misrepresentation, and a disclaimer does not always preclude claims if facts are peculiarly within the seller's knowledge. The court reversed the summary judgment, denying defendant’s motion and granting plaintiff’s motion to depose a nonparty witness.

MisrepresentationReal Estate SaleProperty DisclosureSummary Judgment ReversalMaterial Fact ConcealmentDisclaimer ClausePeculiar Knowledge DoctrineDeposition of Nonparty WitnessIndustrial Waste DiscoveryDutchess County Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodward v. Raymond James Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff John Woodward filed a class action complaint alleging that Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) and its executives engaged in a scheme to defraud shareholders by making material misrepresentations about the adequacy of loan loss reserves for its subsidiary, Raymond James Bank. The complaint detailed an alleged fraudulent scheme involving purposeful underfunding of loan loss reserves, concealment of risky lending practices, and misrepresentation of management styles and SEC filings. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Section 10(b) claim lacked actionable misrepresentations, adequate scienter, and loss causation, and that the Section 20(a) claims lacked a primary violation. The court found that most alleged misrepresentations were non-actionable puffery or lacked specificity, with only statements regarding independent underwriting being considered actionable. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to plead scienter with the required particularity, as most allegations were common corporate motives or lacked specific supporting facts. Consequently, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPleading StandardsPSLRARule 9(b)ScienterMaterial MisrepresentationLoan Loss ReservesFinancial Institutions
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

Plaintiff, a subcontractor for Massa Construction, Inc., initiated an action against defendant surety to secure payment on a labor and materials bond after Massa ceased payments due to alleged breaches by plaintiff. Defendant denied plaintiff's claim, asserting plaintiff materially breached its subcontract by failing to make pension contributions, provide releases, and obtain a separate payment bond. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of compliance and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a material breach. The court noted that alleged non-payments to suppliers only affected the subcontract price, not Massa's obligation to continue performance, and found no requirement for plaintiff to pay pension contributions to the Iron Workers District Council or obtain a separate payment bond from glaziers unions.

SubcontractorSurety BondPublic Improvement ProjectLabor and Materials BondPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractPension ContributionsPayment ObligationsGlaziers Unions
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2002

Claim of Outerie v. Derle Farms, Inc.

Claimant sustained a back injury in July 1995 and received workers' compensation benefits until January 1997. Payments ceased when it was discovered he had been working in his spouse's delicatessen, a fact he failed to disclose to his carrier or treating physicians. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by making material misrepresentations of fact to obtain benefits. Consequently, his benefits were rescinded from November 1996, and he was disqualified from receiving any further benefits after January 13, 1997. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the violation and upholding the Board's authority as the final arbiter of witness credibility to infer the claimant was no longer disabled.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMisrepresentation of FactsBenefit DisqualificationPartial DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewUndisclosed EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionFraudulent Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Potlatch Corp.

The plaintiffs, shareholders of Potlatch Corporation, initiated this action alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and common law. Their claims stemmed from two corporate transactions: a voting rights amendment and a stock repurchase by Potlatch from First City Financial Corporation, Ltd. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court determined that the proxy materials adequately disclosed all relevant facts, including potential entrenchment motives and anti-takeover effects, thus negating claims of material misrepresentation. As a result, the federal securities law claim was dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to the plaintiffs' failure to sufficiently allege diversity of citizenship, leading to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction for those claims.

Securities LawShareholder RightsProxy StatementsCorporate GovernanceHostile TakeoversGreenmailCorporate EntrenchmentDisclosure RequirementsMaterial MisrepresentationStock Repurchase
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Hatfill v. Foster

This decision and order revisits the choice of substantive law in a libel case filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against Conde Nast Publications, Donald Foster, and The Reader's Digest Association, concerning articles published about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially, the court had determined Virginia law applied. However, after further jurisdictional discovery revealed that plaintiff Hatfill had made misrepresentations about his domicile, the court reversed its prior ruling. It concluded that Hatfill was domiciled in Washington D.C. at the time of the articles' publication, and therefore, Washington D.C. law will govern the substantive issues for all defendants. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why their pro hac vice status should not be revoked due to these alleged misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding their client's domicile.

LibelDefamationChoice of LawDomicile DeterminationJurisdictional DiscoveryMisrepresentation to CourtPro Hac Vice RevocationForum ShoppingSingle Publication RuleConflict of Laws
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2014

Matter of Poupore v. Clinton County Highway Department

Claimant sustained work-related injuries in 2002 and was classified as permanently partially disabled in 2005. In 2012, the employer alleged claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a, presenting video surveillance showing activities inconsistent with his reported limitations to an independent medical examiner (IME), Marco Berard. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation, imposing penalties. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified the ruling, agreeing to willful misrepresentations during the IME and imposing a penalty of wage replacement benefits paid from April 27, 2012, to September 14, 2012, while permanently disqualifying him from future benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of willful misrepresentations concerning material facts and that the penalty was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationSurveillance EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage Replacement BenefitsPenaltyAppellate ReviewMaterial Fact
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Norman

The New York Court of Appeals addresses two larceny cases, People v Norman and People v King, which involve defendants failing to deliver goods after payment. The opinion clarifies the distinction between larceny by false promise and larceny by false pretenses, particularly emphasizing the unique "moral certainty" burden of proof for the former at the fact-finding level, not appellate review. For defendant Norman, accused of larceny by false promise, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's dismissal, finding sufficient evidence of his larcenous intent, and remitted the case. Conversely, in People v King, charged with larceny by false pretenses, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment, concluding that the prosecution's theory was supported by evidence of a material misrepresentation of fact. This decision reinforces the legal standards for proving criminal intent in such fraud-related offenses.

LarcenyFalse PromiseFalse PretensesCriminal IntentBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewPenal LawCircumstantial EvidenceContract BreachCriminal Possession of Stolen Property
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campbell v. Interstate Materials Corporation

The claimant, an operating manager for Interstate Materials Corporation, suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knees in August 2006 and a second lower back injury in April 2008. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially classified the claimant with a permanent total disability and struck the independent medical examiner's report. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the IME report improperly precluded due to the examiner's hospitalization and reclassified the claimant with a permanent partial disability, equally apportioned between the two accidents. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in considering the IME report and that substantial evidence supported both the permanent partial disability classification and the equal apportionment of the disability.

Permanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardApportionment of DisabilityMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Cross-Examination RightsAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 3,743 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