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

Romero v. La Revise Associates L.L.C.

Ruben Romero initiated a lawsuit against La Revise Associates, LLC, Jean Denoyer, and Regis Marnier, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Romero sought conditional approval for a collective action on behalf of tipped employees and kitchen staff, claiming underpayment of minimum wage, improper tip credit notices, excessive non-tipped duties, and wage manipulation. Defendants contested the motion, citing existing arbitration agreements with many employees. The court granted Romero's motion for conditional approval, ruling that the arbitrability of claims is a merits issue not relevant at this preliminary stage. The court also approved the proposed notice, limiting the look-back period for potential plaintiffs to three years as per FLSA, rather than the six years under NYLL.

FLSANYLLCollective ActionConditional CertificationTipped EmployeesMinimum WageTip CreditArbitration AgreementsWage and Hour DisputesEmployment Law
References
32
Case No. ANA 0393374ANA 0393375
Regular
May 02, 2008

JOHN PAUL LUCAS vs. GREAT BASIN INSTITUTE, ASSOCIATED RISK MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case concerns an applicant injured in California who also received medical treatment and initial benefits in Nevada. The defendant sought to defer jurisdiction to Nevada, citing a Nevada statute and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, arguing the applicant's acceptance of Nevada benefits barred claims in California. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant did not "volitionally" accept Nevada benefits as he was unaware of signing a Nevada claim form and believed he was receiving benefits under California law. Therefore, California retained jurisdiction over the applicant's workers' compensation claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFull Faith and Credit ClauseCompensable Consequence InjuryJurisdictionNevada LawContract of HireIndustrial InjuryIndustrial AccidentReconsiderationWCJ Report
References
13
Case No. ADJ7568484
Regular
Nov 14, 2014

CHERISH ORANJE vs. CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant residing in Nevada who was receiving telephonic therapy from a California-licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the telephonic therapy violated Nevada law as the therapist was not licensed in Nevada. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, holding that California law governs treatment for injuries sustained in California, and the teletherapy in question complied with California's telehealth statutes. The Board concluded that the therapist's location in California while providing services to a Nevada resident did not violate California law, and any potential violation of Nevada law was irrelevant to the California workers' compensation claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical TreatmentTelephonic TherapyMarriage and Family TherapistTelemedicine Development ActTelehealth Advancement ActBusiness and Professions CodeSynchronous Interaction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Calpine Corp. v. Nevada Power Co. (In Re Calpine Corp.)

Calpine Corporation and its affiliates (Debtors) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They sought an extension of the automatic stay to prevent the ongoing "Nevada Litigation" against co-defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (Fireman's) from proceeding. This litigation stemmed from a dispute with Nevada Power Company regarding a Centennial Project bond, for which Fireman's was surety for Calpine's obligations. The Debtors argued that continuing the Nevada Litigation against Fireman's would adversely impact their reorganization efforts due to potential collateral estoppel, indemnification obligations, and distraction of key personnel. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and Fireman's moved to intervene, which was granted. The court found that Calpine demonstrated irreparable harm, and the balance of equities favored granting the stay, as Fireman's liability was contingent on Calpine's, and a judgment against Fireman's would effectively be a judgment against the Debtors, impairing their reorganization. The court granted the motion to stay the Nevada Litigation.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayCo-Debtor StaySection 362Section 105ReorganizationIrreparable HarmCollateral EstoppelIndemnificationSurety Bond
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. IBM Restaurants Inc.

Plaintiffs Lucio Alvarez, et al., filed a putative collective action against IBM Restaurants, Roger Bedoian, Daniel Iannucci, and Vincenzo Iannucci, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. The plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of the class and to facilitate notice. The court granted the motion for conditional certification, establishing a class of employees who worked for the defendants in the last three years. The court further directed the parties to submit a revised Notice of Pendency, limiting the notice period to three years based on the FLSA's statute of limitations for willful violations, and ordered the defendants to produce a list of putative class members from November 4, 2007, to the present. The court also instructed that the revised notice should include minimum wage claims and deferred the defendants' request for removal of specific defendants.

FLSANew York State Labor LawCollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime PayMinimum WageWage and HourStatute of LimitationsNotice of PendencyEmployee Rights
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2011

Brooklyn Heights Ass'n Inc. v. National Park Service

The plaintiffs (Brooklyn Heights Association, Inc. et al.) filed an action against defendants (National Park Service et al.) seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent alleged violations of federal and state law, specifically regarding the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA). The dispute centered on the National Park Service's (NPS) 2008 and 2011 decisions to revise the "6(f)(3) boundary map" for Empire Fulton Ferry State Park, which excluded the Tobacco Warehouse and Empire Stores. Plaintiffs argued these revisions, made under the guise of correcting a "mistake," were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to LWCFA statutes and regulations, which mandate a conversion process for such changes after a grant closes. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that the administrative record belied any claim of original mistake and that NPS lacked inherent authority to bypass the required conversion procedures. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, setting aside NPS's decisions, restoring the original boundary map, and enjoining any drilling or construction on the affected structures during the litigation.

Land and Water Conservation Fund ActPreliminary InjunctionAdministrative Procedure ActNational Park ServiceEnvironmental LawHistoric PreservationFederal RegulationsPublic Land UseStatutory InterpretationAgency Action Review
References
38
Case No. ADJ8213231
Regular
May 21, 2013

David Lade vs. COUNTY OF NEVADA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the County of Nevada Sheriff's Department's petition for reconsideration of a Findings and Award. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report, finding the petition lacked merit and noting the defendant's procedural missteps. Specifically, the defendant improperly referenced an unadmitted document and sought removal when reconsideration was the correct procedural avenue for a final order. The Board affirmed the applicant's entitlement to shift differential as part of his Labor Code 4850 benefits, aligning with case law that prevents employers from altering an employee's status to avoid such payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of Nevada Sheriff's DepartmentDavid LadeADJ8213231Petition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 1084(a)Labor Code section 4850shift differentialmodified dutylight duty
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,999 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