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

Hall v. Environmental Chemical Corp.

Plaintiff Hall originally sued Defendant Environmental Chemical Corp. for personal injuries under the Jones Act and general maritime law, which were dismissed via summary judgment. Plaintiff then moved to alter judgment, amend the complaint to include LHWCA Section 905(b) and negligence claims, and for a new trial. The Court denied relief under LHWCA Section 905(b), ruling the craft was not a vessel for such purposes, and also denied the motion for a new trial. However, the Court granted leave for Plaintiff to amend the complaint to pursue a general negligence claim, converting the final judgment into a partial summary judgment. Defendant's motion for sanctions was denied.

Jones ActGeneral Maritime LawLHWCA Section 905(b)Vessel DefinitionSummary JudgmentMotion to Alter JudgmentMotion for Leave to AmendMotion for New TrialMotion for SanctionsNegligence Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2006

Beja v. Ford

The plaintiff, a former employee, initiated an action against Meadowbrook Ford d/b/a Syosset Ford and Steven Weiss for wrongful termination and personal injuries. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, while the plaintiff cross-moved to amend it. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding the plaintiff's allegations insufficient to state a cause of action or barred by the Workers' Compensation Law. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint was denied.

Wrongful TerminationEmployment LawMotion to DismissLeave to Amend ComplaintVicarious LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryAppellate ProcedureCPLR 3211CPLR 3025
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bates v. University of Texas Medical Branch

This case involves seven plaintiffs who sued the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) and Leon Clements, alleging employment discrimination based on gender, race, age, and disability, retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants filed motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, and arguing that the plaintiffs' claims lacked merit. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing with prejudice all claims against UTMB and Clements, including those under Title VII (age, punitive damages), §§ 1981 and 1983, ADA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their pleading was also denied, leaving only certain Title VII claims for further proceedings.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimsFirst Amendment RightsSovereign ImmunityQualified ImmunityIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTitle VII Civil Rights ActSection 1983 ClaimsADA ClaimsAge Discrimination in Employment Act
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guilbeaux v. 3927 Foundation, Inc.

Plaintiff Wanda Guilbeaux sued Defendant 3927 Foundation after injuring her back while employed as a nurse's aide. Guilbeaux initially filed in state court, alleging negligence, but later amended her petition to include claims of breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing related to an employee benefit plan. The Foundation removed the case to federal court, arguing that Guilbeaux's claims were preempted by ERISA. The court denied the Foundation's motion to strike Guilbeaux's untimely response. However, the court granted the Foundation's motion to dismiss Guilbeaux's state law claims, finding them preempted by ERISA. Finally, the court granted Guilbeaux's alternative motion for leave to amend her pleadings to specifically allege claims under ERISA.

ERISA PreemptionEmployee Benefit PlanMotion to DismissMotion to StrikeLeave to AmendState Law ClaimsFederal Question JurisdictionBreach of ContractBreach of Good Faith and Fair DealingWorkers' Compensation Laws
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tokko v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Plaintiff, a general utility worker employed by the defendant, was reported to authorities by an instructor for asking suspicious questions about manhole safety. A Joint Terrorist Task Force investigated the concerns but found them unsubstantiated. Plaintiff claims he developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from the incident and alleges discrimination based on his race, national origin, and religion, violating the New York State Human Rights Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New York. The court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion to restore certain causes of action, citing a failure to allege disparate impact and protection under the Freedom to Report Terrorism Act. The court also affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint for intentional tort and discrimination, noting that while a disability claim for PTSD might state a cause of action for failure to accommodate, it was being pursued in a separate action, rendering the amendment motion academic.

Employment discriminationRacial discriminationNational origin discriminationReligious discriminationHostile work environmentPost-traumatic stress disorderDisability claimFailure to accommodateFreedom to Report Terrorism ActAppellate affirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amaya v. Roadhouse Brick Oven Pizza, Inc.

Plaintiff Luis A. Amaya filed a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) against Defendants Roadhouse Brick Oven Pizza, Inc. and Charles Herman, alleging unpaid overtime and denied break periods. Amaya moved to amend his complaint to add Canoe the River, Inc. as an additional defendant, having discovered through interrogatories that Canoe also employed him and shared common ownership and location with Roadhouse. Defendants opposed the motion, citing untimeliness, prejudice, and futility. The court found the motion timely, noting Amaya's diligent efforts to confirm Canoe's employer status and his adherence to court-extended deadlines. Furthermore, the court determined that the proposed amendment would not cause undue prejudice or futility, dismissing arguments about additional discovery as insufficient to deny the motion and deeming the factual dispute over employer identity inappropriate for this stage. Consequently, the motion to amend the complaint to include Canoe the River, Inc. as a defendant was granted.

FLSANYLLMotion to AmendPleading AmendmentJoinderUndue DelayPrejudiceFutilityRule 15(a)Rule 21
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New Breed Logistics

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued New Breed Logistics, alleging sexual harassment by supervisor James Calhoun against Jaquelyn Hines, Capricius Pearson, and Tiffany Pete, and retaliation against them and Christopher Partee under Title VII. Following a jury verdict against New Breed, the company moved for a new trial, to amend judgment, and for judgment as a matter of law, citing errors in jury instructions and insufficient evidence. The court denied New Breed's motion for a new trial, and partially granted and denied its motions to amend judgment and for judgment as a matter of law. Notably, Partee's punitive damages were reduced due to a statutory cap, and the court addressed the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions in Vance and Nassar on supervisor liability and causation standards. The court ultimately found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on harassment, retaliation, and punitive damages, and affirmed the jury instructions.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIJury InstructionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew Trial MotionAmend Judgment MotionPunitive DamagesEmployer LiabilityCausation Standard
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valerio v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, Josefina Reyes and her children, sued the City and their landlord for personal injuries due to lead paint exposure in their apartment. The children, Edwin and Edgar, developed elevated blood lead levels. Plaintiffs alleged the City failed to enforce lead-poisoning statutes (LPPPA), violated civil rights (42 USC § 1983), and was negligent, among other claims. The City moved for summary judgment, while plaintiffs cross-moved to amend their complaint to assert a breach of special duty. The court found no private right of action under LPPPA or for civil rights violations in private housing, and ruled that the City had no contract-based obligation regarding lead abatement. However, the court granted plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend the complaint to include a special duty claim, recognizing that factual questions regarding the City's negligent abatement during occupancy might suffice to show a breach of special duty. The City's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all originally pleaded claims against the City.

lead poisoninglead paintsummary judgmentspecial dutynegligencecivil rightsLPPPAmunicipal liabilitylandlord liabilityHousing Preservation and Development
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perino v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)

The plaintiff sought to amend their complaint, originally filed on June 17, 1987, which objected to the dischargeability of a debt under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The proposed amendment aimed to increase compensatory damages from $5,000 to $10,000 and introduce a new claim for $20,000 in punitive damages, alleging violations of the New York Human Rights Law. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing bad faith, undue prejudice due to the expanded monetary claims, and the legal insufficiency of the punitive damages under New York law or its being time-barred. Citing the liberal amendment policy of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court determined that the increase in damages or addition of a punitive claim did not automatically constitute bad faith or prejudice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was granted, with the court allowing the plaintiff to pursue the colorable punitive damages claim, leaving the statute of limitations defense to be addressed later.

Motion to Amend ComplaintBankruptcy DischargeabilityPunitive Damages ClaimCompensatory DamagesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)New York Human Rights LawCollateral EstoppelLegal Sufficiency of PleadingStatute of Limitations DefenseBad Faith and Prejudice
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 16,301 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