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
Nov 01, 1994

Hein v. Merck & Co., Inc.

The court considered a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Richard A. Palfin regarding hedonic damages. Applying the Daubert standard, the court evaluated the reliability and validity of his methodology, which included wage studies, consumer purchasing patterns, and surveys. The court found significant issues with the testability, peer review acceptance, error rate, and underlying assumptions of hedonic damages valuation. Citing other court decisions rejecting similar expert testimony, the court concluded that such testimony is unreliable, invalid, and not helpful to the jury. Therefore, the motion to exclude Dr. Palfin's testimony was granted.

Daubert StandardHedonic DamagesExpert TestimonyMotion in LimineReliability of EvidenceValidity of Scientific EvidenceFederal Rules of Evidence 702Economic ValuationsTort LawDamages Assessment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Harris

Plaintiff Robert Jones, an incarcerated individual at Sing Sing, initiated this action alleging his cell was searched multiple times in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights and in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with various property deprivations. Defendants, including correctional officers Harris and Allen, and Superintendent Marshall, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to state a claim. The court granted dismissal of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims related to cell searches and alleged sexual harassment, as well as First Amendment retaliation claims concerning cell searches, property destruction, and false misconduct reports, citing insufficient factual allegations or failure to meet constitutional thresholds. However, the court denied dismissal of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim regarding the deprivation of three specific items of property against defendants Allen and Marshall, requesting further legal briefing on questions concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and access to post-deprivation procedures. Motions filed by the plaintiff for summary judgment and in limine were denied; the former as futile due to lack of exhaustion or constitutional violation, and the latter as premature.

Prisoner RightsFirst AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessRetaliationCell SearchProperty DeprivationQualified ImmunityAdministrative Remedies
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chamblee v. Harris & Harris, Inc.

Plaintiff Latoya Chamblee filed a sexual harassment and constructive discharge lawsuit against Harris & Harris, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurant and Jeffrey Artis under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Chamblee alleged her supervisor, Jeffrey Artis, subjected her to persistent sexual harassment, creating an intolerable work environment that compelled her to resign. Defendants sought summary judgment, challenging the constructive discharge claim and arguing against Artis's individual liability under Title VII. The court denied summary judgment on the constructive discharge theory, finding genuine factual disputes existed. It also held that Artis could face individual liability under the New York Human Rights Law due to his significant managerial authority. Additionally, the court ruled on various in limine motions, excluding evidence of plaintiff's alleged sexually transmitted disease and testimony from certain witnesses, but allowing evidence of plaintiff's past failure to pay taxes for impeachment purposes.

Sexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentMotions in LimineIndividual LiabilityWorkplace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentCredibility Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Envirosolutions of New York, LLC

This memorandum decision addresses the Debtors' motion in limine to preclude certain evidence in a Title VII racial discrimination and retaliation case brought by four claimants (Griggs, Sloan, Stephens, and Dougbey) in bankruptcy court. The claimants alleged various forms of discrimination, including hostile work environment. The Court, presided by Judge Stuart M. Bernstein, granted the motion in part, striking the hostile work environment claims for Dougbey, Sloan, and Stephens due to insufficient administrative exhaustion at the EEOC level. However, Griggs's hostile work environment claim was deemed administratively exhausted. Other evidentiary issues were deferred for trial.

Racial discriminationRetaliationTitle VIIHostile work environmentMotion in limineAdministrative exhaustionStatute of limitationsDisparate treatmentEEOCBankruptcy court
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

Rasberry ex rel. Situated v. Columbia Cnty.

This order addresses Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine, seeking to exclude various categories of evidence in a case concerning alleged overtime violations under the FLSA. The Court granted several of Plaintiffs' requests, including those related to prior civil lawsuits, bankruptcies, other jailers not part of the suit, other employment, alleged waivers of FLSA rights, attorneys' fees, settlement offers, and general negative impacts of lawsuits. However, the Court denied requests concerning references to past criminal convictions (without prejudice), employment by the Defendant outside the relevant period (without prejudice), disciplinary actions (without prejudice), and the amount of Plaintiffs' salaries. The Court also denied the request regarding the jury's role in mathematically computing damages, stating it would be addressed in jury instructions. The overall decision was granted in part and denied in part.

Motion in LimineEvidence ExclusionOvertime ViolationsFLSAFair Labor Standards ActCredibilityUndue PrejudiceIrrelevant EvidenceJury ConfusionDamages Calculation
References
2
Case No. 2015-08-0118
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2015

Scott, Jr., Raymond W. v. Snyder Services Plumbing Company

This Expedited Hearing Order addresses Raymond W. Scott, Jr.'s request for medical and temporary disability benefits following a claimed right arm injury. The Court denied Mr. Scott's request, finding that he failed to present sufficient evidence that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. The decision also granted the employer's motion in limine, excluding an untimely filed affidavit. The court noted inconsistencies in Mr. Scott's reporting of the injury's work-relatedness to medical providers and his employer, ultimately accepting his initial report that the injury was not work-related.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingDenial of BenefitsMotion in LimineTimelinessWork-Related InjuryMedical TreatmentDisability BenefitsEmployer LiabilityInsurance Claim
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

This document addresses a procedural matter where a motion for reargument of a previous motion for leave to appeal was considered by the court. The outcome of this specific motion was a denial. Notably, Judge Feinman indicated that he took no part in the decision-making process for this particular motion. The text also references a prior related case decided in 2017.

ReargumentLeave to AppealMotion DeniedAppellate ProcedureRecusal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2009

Beach v. Healthways, Inc.

This order addresses a motion to intervene by the Central Laborers’ Pension Fund (CLPF) and the defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin denied the defendants' motion to stay, reasoning that despite potential unnecessary discovery, the existing discovery timelines did not permit bifurcation or phasing of discovery. The court granted CLPF’s motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, finding it met all requirements under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Key factors for intervention included timeliness, a substantial economic interest in the litigation, the potential impairment of CLPF's interest without intervention, and the inadequacy of representation by existing individual plaintiffs for a class of institutional investors. The order also noted that parties resolved proposed modifications to the discovery plan.

Securities LitigationClass ActionMotion to InterveneMotion to Stay DiscoveryFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Private Securities Litigation Reform ActInstitutional InvestorPension FundAdequacy of RepresentationTimeliness of Motion
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of America

This document concerns a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The motion was denied. The decision references an earlier case cited as 26 NY3d 981 from 2015. It is noted that Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia did not participate in this ruling.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealDenied MotionAppellate ProcedureJudicial Review
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 13,399 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