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

Mirkin & Gordon, P. C. v. Suffolk County-Local 852 Civil Service Employees Ass'n Legal Services Fund

This case involves an appeal by the Legal Services Fund (defendant) from an order denying its motion to dismiss a breach of contract complaint filed by a law firm (plaintiff). The plaintiff law firm sued the Legal Services Fund for breach of retainer agreements and non-payment for services. The defendant sought dismissal based on res judicata, arguing that a prior federal lawsuit, which was dismissed on the merits, barred the state action. The federal action, filed by the plaintiff law firm against county legislators and welfare fund trustees, alleged a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights under 42 USC § 1983 by terminating their retainer. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the dismissal motion. This appellate decision affirms that denial, concluding that res judicata does not apply because the parties and claims in the federal and state actions were not identical, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the contract claims against the Legal Services Fund.

Breach of ContractRes JudicataClaim PreclusionFederal Court JurisdictionState Court ActionDismissalAppellate ReviewCivil Rights (42 USC § 1983)Legal ServicesLaw Firm Retainer
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. 00-CV-905
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Trade Commission v. First Capital Consumer Membership Services, Inc.

Non-party Electronic Payment Exchange (EPX) sought to intervene as a plaintiff in a case initiated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against First Capital defendants. EPX claimed a significant financial interest due to an outstanding debt from defendant Worldwide Telecom, Inc., and a specific interest in funds held in the "Dakota Financial Group" account seized by the FTC and placed under receivership. EPX moved to intervene as of right and by permission, arguing its interests were not adequately protected by the FTC or the Receiver. The court denied EPX's motion, finding that EPX did not demonstrate that its interests would be impaired or inadequately protected, especially given the FTC's role as parens patriae and the Receiver's obligation to all claimants. The court also noted that EPX had alternative avenues for relief and that allowing intervention would introduce collateral issues and unduly delay the main action.

InterventionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2)Asset FreezeReceivershipPromissory NoteCreditor ClaimsAdequacy of RepresentationParens PatriaeCollateral Issues
References
17
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2002

Kobre v. United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, Inc.

Elisha Kobre, a junior counselor, suffered quadriplegic injuries from a shallow dive at Camp Mogen Avraham in 1991. His mother, Sheryl Kobre, initiated a negligence action against United Jewish Appeal (UJA) and Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York Service Corporation (FOJP), alleging they exercised control over the camp's operations and safety. While the action against the camp itself was settled via workers' compensation, UJA and FOJP sought summary judgment, which was initially denied. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that neither UJA, a philanthropic funder, nor FOJP, an insurance advisor, exerted sufficient control over the camp's waterfront activities to establish a legal duty of care to the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that FOJP's safety surveys were primarily for its own benefit in reducing insurance risks. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

NegligenceDuty of CareSummary JudgmentCamp SafetyShallow Water DivingQuadriplegiaWorkers' CompensationPhilanthropic OrganizationInsurance LiabilityRisk Management
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

VAC Service Corp. v. Service Merchandise Co.

VAC Service Corporation sued Service Merchandise Corporation Inc. (SMC) for breach of contract related to extended replacement service agreements. SMC counterclaimed against VAC and its insurance carrier, Continental Insurance Company. Continental moved to stay the proceedings, arguing that an enforceable arbitration agreement existed with SMC. The court examined the Federal Arbitration Act and relevant case law, emphasizing the strong federal policy favoring arbitration. The Continental policy's broad arbitration clause, specifying that "any controversy arising out of or relating to this insurance... shall be submitted to arbitration," was central to the decision. Despite SMC's argument that a "sue" clause in the policy implied court action, the court found this insufficient to override the comprehensive arbitration agreement. Consequently, Continental's motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration was granted.

Arbitration AgreementStay of ProceedingsFederal Arbitration ActContract DisputeInsurance PolicyCommercial Arbitration RulesAmerican Arbitration AssociationArbitrabilityCounterclaimInterstate Commerce
References
14
Case No. No. 28
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

The Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Service v. Kerry Delaney

This case involves an appeal by Mental Hygiene Legal Service on behalf of a 16-year-old child with developmental disabilities who was confined to an emergency room for several weeks due to a lack of suitable residential placement or in-home services. Petitioner sought the child's immediate discharge and a declaration that the state's failure to provide community habilitation and respite services was arbitrary and violated her statutory rights under CPLR articles 70 and 78, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lower courts dismissed the petition, finding the matter moot but applying the exception. The Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the appeal on grounds of mootness, citing intervening material alterations to service programs, specifically the Crisis Services for Individuals with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities (CSIDD) program. A dissenting opinion argued for the application of the mootness exception and the viability of petitioner's claims under state and federal law.

Developmental DisabilitiesMedicaid ServicesEmergency Room ConfinementMootness ExceptionIntegration MandateMental Hygiene LawAmericans with Disabilities ActCrisis ServicesResidential PlacementNew York Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. 09 Civ. 4390 (PKC)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Aiello v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Aiello, a civilian contractor, sued Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in a latrine at Camp Shield, a forward operating base in Iraq. Aiello alleged negligent construction, renovation, repair, and/or maintenance of the facility. Defendant Kellogg moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses including the political question doctrine and federal preemption under the combatant activities exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The District Court found the political question doctrine inapplicable but granted summary judgment for Kellogg, holding that tort claims against government contractors integrated into military combatant activities in a war zone are preempted. The court reasoned that the maintenance of essential life-support facilities at an active forward operating base constituted combatant activity, and imposing state tort liability would significantly conflict with unique federal interests.

Military Contractor LiabilityFederal PreemptionCombatant Activities ExceptionFederal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)Political Question DoctrineSummary JudgmentNegligenceIraq War OperationsCamp ShieldLogistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zuckerman v. Volume Services America, Inc.

Plaintiff Gail Zuckerman initiated a disability discrimination lawsuit under New York State law against her former employer, Volume Services America (VSA), and her union, Local 37. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing preemption by Section 301 of the Labor Relations Act and seeking dismissal based on the statute of limitations. The court denied VSA's summary judgment motion, ruling that Zuckerman's claims against the employer did not necessitate interpreting the collective bargaining agreement and thus were not preempted. Conversely, the court granted Local 37's motion, finding that the claims against the union amounted to a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by federal law and time-barred by a six-month limitation period. Consequently, the case against VSA was remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, as federal jurisdiction no longer applied to that portion of the dispute.

Disability DiscriminationLabor Relations ActSection 301 PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDuty of Fair RepresentationRetaliatory DischargeHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive Discharge
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 8,816 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