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

Doodnath v. Morgan Contracting Corp.

Plaintiff, a truck driver for subcontractor Regional, was injured while stacking materials in Regional's truck, slipping on a wet plank. Property owner Cornell and general contractor Morgan were granted summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims and cross claims against them. The court determined that Regional, not Cornell or Morgan, controlled the work activity, and Cornell and Morgan lacked timely notice of the specific hazard. Plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d) was also rejected because he slipped on a stacked plank, not a work surface. Claims for contractual indemnification against Regional and AWR Group were deemed moot.

Truck DriverWorkplace InjurySidewalk BridgeSummary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceContractual Indemnification
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curry v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

Plaintiff Christian Leigh Curry sued Morgan Stanley & Co. for employment discrimination, alleging racial and perceived sexual orientation discrimination after being fired as a first-year analyst. Morgan Stanley contended Curry was fired for repeated expense account fraud. Curry sought expense records of senior executives, claiming a corporate culture of fraud to justify his own actions. The Court denied Curry's renewed request for discovery, finding his allegations of widespread abuse unsupported and his conduct (fabricating receipts for personal purchases as overtime meals) significantly different from any minor errors found in other analysts' records. The Court also found Curry not 'similarly situated' to the senior executives whose records he sought.

Employment DiscriminationExpense Account FraudMisconductDiscovery DisputeSimilarly SituatedCorporate CultureEmployee MisconductFraudulent ReimbursementRacial DiscriminationSexual Orientation Discrimination
References
7
Case No. CV-23-0563
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Dexter Morgan

Claimant Dexter Morgan, a warehouse associate, filed for workers\' compensation benefits alleging occupational disease due to repetitive motions causing injuries to multiple body parts. A Workers\' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim based on treating physicians\' testimony, crediting their opinions over the carrier\'s consultant. However, the Workers\' Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim due to insufficient medical evidence demonstrating a causal link between Morgan\'s conditions and specific job duties, noting the treating physicians had limited knowledge of his work. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board\'s decision, finding that the Board\'s determination was supported by substantial evidence, as the medical providers\' understanding of claimant\'s specific job duties was too generalized to establish a recognizable link.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers\' Compensation BenefitsRepetitive Motion InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWarehouse AssociateNeck InjuryBack Injury
References
6
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02241
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

Matter of Morgan v. Kinray, Inc.

Claimant Dexter Morgan, a warehouse associate, sought workers' compensation benefits for an occupational disease to multiple body parts, alleging injuries from repetitive work tasks. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially credited treating physicians' opinions and established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim. The Board found insufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal link between Morgan's conditions and his employment, particularly noting the treating providers' limited understanding of his specific job duties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the Board's decision, which included its discretion to resolve conflicting medical opinions and assess the sufficiency of evidence, was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWarehouse AssociateRepetitive MotionNeck and Back InjuryHand and Wrist Pain
References
6
Case No. 09 Civ. 8197
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International

This case involves a financial dispute between Citibank, N.A. and Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC (MSIP) stemming from a credit default swap agreement. Citibank sued MSIP for breach of contract, and MSIP filed counterclaims including reformation and equitable estoppel. Previously, the court granted Citibank's motion for judgment on its breach of contract claim and dismissed MSIP's initial counterclaims. In this current ruling, the court addresses MSIP's amended counterclaims. The court denies Citibank's motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding MSIP's counterclaim for reformation based on mutual mistake, finding it plausible. However, Citibank's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted for MSIP's counterclaim for equitable estoppel, which is dismissed with prejudice, as MSIP could not show prejudice related to the original swap based on later communications.

Credit Default SwapBreach of ContractReformation (contract law)Equitable EstoppelJudgment on the PleadingsFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Mutual MistakeFinancial InstitutionsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)
References
28
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08836
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2015

Matter of Morgan A.H.-P. (Ta-Mirra J.H.)

This case concerns an appeal by Morgan A.H.-P., a child, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County. The Family Court order dismissed a petition filed by New Alternatives for Children (the Agency) to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect. The child was initially placed in foster care in 2010. After the child's transfer to the Agency in 2011, the permanency goal was changed from reunification to adoption, a decision contested by the mother. The Agency subsequently petitioned to terminate parental rights, relying on documentary evidence during the fact-finding hearing. The Family Court found that the Agency failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship, instead concluding that the Agency actively undermined it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, determining that the Agency did not meet its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, thus upholding the dismissal of the termination petition.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectFamily CourtAppellate ReviewChild WelfareDiligent EffortsParent-Child RelationshipTermination of Parental RightsSocial Services LawFoster Care
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03584 [150 AD3d 1360]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Matter of Xie v. JP Morgan Chase

The claimant, Agnes Xie, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits. Xie, a bank executive for JP Morgan Chase, alleged she sustained neck, back, and shoulder injuries in November 2013 due to an ergonomically incorrect workstation. After her employment was terminated, she filed a claim, which was initially proposed for establishment for a back injury by the Board but later rescinded. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, citing lack of notice and insufficient evidence linking the injuries to employment, a decision upheld by the Board. On appeal, Xie argued employer preclusion and the Board's erroneous failure to establish her claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found these arguments unpreserved for review. The court also noted that while email records regarding workstation issues were before the Board, they did not alter the outcome, as the Board's decision rested on its assessment of witness credibility. Consequently, the Board's decision denying benefits was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation ClaimWorkstation InjuryErgonomic IssuesNeck, Back, Shoulder PainNotice RequirementPreservation of IssuesAppellate ReviewBoard Continuing JurisdictionCredibility of TestimonyClaim Denial
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07632
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Morgan v. DR2 & Co. LLC

The claimant, Heidi M. Morgan, appealed multiple decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board following a 2007 work-related accident. The Board had initially denied review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, ruling that claimant's application failed to comply with service requirements upon the carrier. Subsequent applications for reconsideration and rehearing were also denied by the Board, with the latter based on the finding that the 'newly discovered evidence' was available in the Board's file for two years prior. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in denying review for defective service or in denying a rehearing, as the third-party administrator does not fulfill the service requirements for the carrier.

Workers' CompensationService of ProcessAdministrative ReviewReconsiderationRehearingAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureRegulatory ComplianceThird DepartmentNew Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of New York

Sonia V. Grant, a black female, sued her former employer, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, alleging race and sex discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and class action certification. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss certain individual and class Title VII claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding they were not presented to or investigated by the EEOC. Additionally, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, concluding she failed to demonstrate the existence of a class or her adequacy as a representative due to insufficient statistical evidence and substantial individual defenses.

Employment DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 196442 U.S.C. § 1981Race DiscriminationSex DiscriminationClass ActionClass CertificationMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionEEOC
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Offshore Exploration & Production LLC v. Morgan Stanley Private Bank, N.A.

The plaintiff, Offshore Exploration and Production, LLC (Offshore), initiated an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Morgan Stanley, acting as an Escrow Agent, must release over $75 million from an escrow fund to defendants Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC) and Ecopetrol S.A. An arbitration panel had previously ordered Offshore to pay this amount to KNOC and Ecopetrol. However, KNOC and Ecopetrol argued the payment should come directly from Offshore to preserve the escrow fund for other obligations, contending that this dispute falls under the arbitration clause of their Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA). The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action pending arbitration, while Offshore cross-moved for summary judgment. The court, emphasizing the strong federal policy favoring international arbitration, found that the SPA's broad arbitration clause, which incorporated the American Arbitration Association's International Arbitration Rules, clearly delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitration panel. The court rejected Offshore's arguments that the dispute arose solely under the Escrow Agreement or that a conflict existed between the SPA's mandatory arbitration clause and the Escrow Agreement's permissive forum selection clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action, pending the arbitration panel's decision on arbitrability and the merits, and denied Offshore's motion for summary judgment without prejudice.

ArbitrationInternational ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsDeclaratory JudgmentContract DisputeEscrow AgreementStock Purchase AgreementArbitrabilityForum SelectionFederal Arbitration Act
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 79 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