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. ADJ8847768
Regular
Aug 31, 2015

RAUL VAZQUEZ vs. THE MILLARD GROUP, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICE GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Raul Vazquez's petition for reconsideration against The Millard Group and its insurer. The Board found the petition was untimely filed, exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was served. Proof of mailing alone is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board within the statutory period. Therefore, the Board lacked the authority to consider the merits of the petition, which would have been denied anyway based on the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB RulesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeService by MailProof of MailingDismissalLegal Precedent
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act
References
8
Case No. 1:10-cv-03461-PAC
Regular Panel Decision

Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses six consolidated class actions against Goldman Sachs & Co. and its officers and directors, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs claim the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) security and failed to disclose a Wells notice from the SEC and a subsequent criminal investigation, which led to a significant drop in Goldman Sachs' stock price. The Court consolidated the actions and proceeded to determine the 'most adequate plaintiff' to serve as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). After evaluating several contenders and applying the four *Lax* factors for financial interest, the Court designated the Pension Group as the lead plaintiff. The Pension Group comprises the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the West Virginia Investment Management Board, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Group, and their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP and Labaton Sucharow, LLP as co-lead counsels was approved.

Securities LitigationClass ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRAConsolidation of CasesFinancial InterestRule 23 RequirementsMisleading StatementsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)Goldman Sachs
References
15
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02549 [216 AD3d 833]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2023

Santiago v. Hanley Group, Inc.

David Santiago, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a roof while performing construction work. He and his wife initiated a lawsuit against the general contractor, Hanley Group, Inc., asserting, among other claims, a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against Hanley Group, Inc. Hanley Group, Inc. appealed, contending that it had complied with its statutory duty or that Santiago's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, or that he was a recalcitrant worker. The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of its contentions and therefore affirmed the lower court's order.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFall from HeightRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSole Proximate CauseGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafety Devices
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05955 [174 AD3d 850]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

Davies v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Gerald Davies, was injured while pushing a cart of concrete over a plywood sheet that covered a hole at a construction site. He initiated an action against the premises operator, Simon Property Group, Inc., the general contractor, E.W. Howell Co., LLC, and the sidewalk removal company, Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). E.W. Howell Co., LLC also filed a third-party action against Allstate Interior Demolition Corporation, the plaintiff's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court's initial order, which partially granted and denied various summary judgment motions, was subject to appeals and cross-appeals. The Appellate Division ultimately reversed the order in part, granting Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and denying Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion concerning Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationElevation DifferentialScaffold LawIndustrial CodeSafe Work Environment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 1981

Claim of Kosak v. Dana Group, Inc.

This case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The central issue was whether the claimant was an employee of Dana Group, Inc. The Board found an employer-employee relationship, citing payroll stubs and checks from Dana Group, Inc. to the claimant. Despite being advised, the employer did not appear at a subsequent hearing. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision regarding the employer-employee relationship was deemed proper. The appellate court affirmed these decisions, concluding they were supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipPayroll EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative ProceedingsConcurring OpinionBoard DecisionAppealClaimant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. v. Travelers Group, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, compelling The Travelers Group to indemnify plaintiffs for a $2.3 million judgment in a personal injury action, and denied Travelers' cross-motion. The Travelers Group had issued a workers' compensation policy to FTJ Environmental, Inc., whose employees were injured while working in New York City. The policy's coverage was explicitly conditioned on the work in New York being necessary or incidental to FTJ's work in New Jersey, which was listed as the coverage state. The appellate court found no evidence in the record to support this condition and noted that the policy limit was $100,000 per accident, not $2.3 million. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order, denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation PolicyEmployers Liability PolicyPolicy CoverageLabor Law § 240Burden of ProofInsurance Policy LimitsAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
1
Case No. 2023-00083 (Index No. 11032/18)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

Miolan v. Milmar Food Group, LLC

Alquidania Miolan appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which granted summary judgment to Milmar Food Group, LLC, and Milmar Food Group II, LLC. Miolan sought damages for personal injuries from a slip and fall at a facility operated by the Milmar defendants, where she was employed through a staffing agency. The Milmar defendants successfully argued that Miolan's claims were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, asserting they were her 'special employer.' The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Milmar defendants had established, prima facie, their status as Miolan's special employer. Consequently, the court concluded that Miolan's claims were barred by the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployerSummary JudgmentPersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewExclusivity ProvisionStaffing AgencyOrange CountyPremises Liability
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,595 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