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

United States v. Raymond & Whitcomb Co.

The United States, on behalf of the Postal Service, sued Raymond & Whitcomb Co. (R&W) for misusing non-profit mail rates, resulting in a $398,960.05 deficiency, bringing claims under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, unjust enrichment, and the False Claims Act. The court found that R&W, a for-profit entity, collaborated with non-profit institutions (Metropolitan Museum of Art and Smithsonian Institution) on travel programs, and its significant financial stake in these ventures made the mailings ineligible for non-profit rates. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to the United States on the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act and unjust enrichment claims, ordering R&W to pay the deficiency. However, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on the False Claims Act count, determining that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding R&W's knowledge of the falsity of the mailing statements—specifically, whether their actions constituted reckless disregard or mere negligence. The case will proceed to trial to resolve the scienter element of the False Claims Act claim, while the debt for the misused postage is established.

Mail fraudNon-profit mail rateFalse Claims ActFederal Debt Collection Procedure ActUnjust enrichmentSummary judgmentCooperative mailingsPostal Service regulationsScienterReckless disregard
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Glaze v. Villa Manufacturing Co.

The court examined whether the decedent was an independent contractor, determining it was a factual question within the Workers' Compensation Board's purview. Evidence supported the independent contractor status, including the appellant’s field supervisor's testimony of no control over the decedent's work or hours, merely checking quality. Further proof included the decedent's bill for work, accepted payment via a non-payroll check without deductions, and the appellant's long-standing business practice of referring kitchen cabinet installations to subcontractors. Despite potential contrary inferences, the board's prerogative to credit its chosen evidence was upheld. Consequently, the decision appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division were reversed, reinstating the Workers' Compensation Board's original decision to disallow the claim.

Independent ContractorWorkers' CompensationQuestion of FactSubstantial EvidenceClaim DisallowanceAppellate ReviewEmployer ControlPayment MethodSubcontractors
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Jamesway Corp.

This case addresses whether claims arising from a debtor's rejection of non-residential real property leases, which were assumed in a prior Chapter 11 case (Jamesway I), are entitled to administrative priority in a subsequent Chapter 11 case (Jamesway II). Landlords sought administrative expense status for these claims, while Jamesway and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors argued they were general unsecured claims subject to statutory limitations. The court denied the Landlords' motion, holding that the claims do not qualify for administrative priority in Jamesway II because the leases were not assumed in this distinct second proceeding and did not provide an actual benefit to the Jamesway II estate. Consequently, the court granted Jamesway's cross-motion, classifying the Landlords' claims as general unsecured pre-petition claims, subject to the caps outlined in § 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

BankruptcyChapter 11Lease RejectionAdministrative ClaimUnsecured ClaimSummary JudgmentSuccessive Bankruptcy FilingsCreditor PriorityDebtor-in-PossessionEstate Preservation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital

Plaintiffs, a group of uninsured and indigent patients, brought a consolidated action against New York-Presbyterian Hospital, NY-Presbyterian Health Care System, Inc., and the American Hospital Association. They argued that private non-profit hospitals are legally obligated to provide free or reduced-rate services to uninsured individuals and that the rates charged were unreasonable compared to those offered to insured patients. The plaintiffs alleged violations of federal laws, including 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) (tax exemption), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as various New York state laws, such as breach of contract, breach of charitable trust, New York General Business Law § 349, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims with prejudice, concluding that no federal or state law requires private non-profit hospitals to offer free or reduced-rate care or to charge uninsured patients the same as insured patients. The court found that plaintiffs lacked standing for several claims and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for the remaining allegations.

Uninsured Patient RightsHospital PricingNon-Profit HospitalsTax Exempt StatusDebt Collection PracticesEmergency Medical TreatmentCivil Rights ClaimsCharitable Trust LawNew York Business LawUnjust Enrichment
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Handel

HSBC Bank USA objected to Joel M. Handel's exemptions of his interest in a profit-sharing plan and three life insurance policies in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. HSBC argued that Handel's actions, including unauthorized withdrawals and false representations as a trustee, violated the plan's terms, ERISA, and IRC Section 401(a), thereby rendering his interest non-exempt. The court acknowledged Handel's violations but, citing Patterson v. Shumate, ruled that an anti-alienation provision enforceable under ERISA excludes the plan interest from the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of operational compliance or tax-qualified status. Additionally, the court found Handel adequately identified the life insurance policies. Consequently, HSBC's motion was denied, preserving Handel's exemptions.

BankruptcyERISAPension PlanExemptionAnti-alienationDebtor's EstateIRC 401(a)Life InsuranceDebtor's ConductFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. 535748, 533778, 536208, CV-22-2049
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony Puccio

Claimant Anthony Puccio, a masonry worker, sustained a paraplegic injury after falling from a roof in September 2019. He filed a workers' compensation claim against Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC, which was initially accepted by the State Insurance Fund (SIF) with liability. SIF later controverted the claim, alleging Puccio was a partner, not an employee, and thus excluded from coverage. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding insufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship and concluding Puccio was a profit-sharing partner/owner. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's determination regarding Puccio's status and upholding the denial of claimant's applications for reconsideration and rehearing, despite SIF's non-compliance with a procedural deadline.

employer-employee relationshipworkers' compensation benefitsprofit-sharing agreementpartnership statusinsurance coverage disputeState Insurance FundBoard discretionsubstantial evidenceadministrative reviewrehearing application
References
8
Case No. 13-CV-1459, 13-cv-0303
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2014

Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. Sebelius

This Memorandum Decision and Order addresses challenges brought by six New York-area Roman Catholic affiliated organizations against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraceptive coverage mandate. Plaintiffs argued the mandate, even with accommodations, substantially burdened their religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court distinguished between "Diocesan plaintiffs" (exempt) and "non-Diocesan plaintiffs" (non-exempt). Summary judgment was granted for the non-Diocesan plaintiffs on their RFRA claims, finding a substantial burden and that the government failed to use the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling interest. Conversely, summary judgment was granted for the defendants against the Diocesan plaintiffs, as their exempt status meant no substantial burden on their religious exercise. An injunction was issued against enforcing the mandate on non-Diocesan plaintiffs.

Religious Freedom Restoration ActACA Contraception MandateReligious Non-ProfitsFirst AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseSummary JudgmentInjunctionHealth Care LawConstitutional ChallengeReligious Exemptions
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves two related limitation proceedings (the "APL Action" and the "Hanjin Action") arising from a vessel collision in Korean waters between the President Washington (owned by American President Lines, Ltd. - APL) and the Hanjin Hong Kong (chartered by Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. and owned by Highlight Navigation Corporation). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, presided by Judge SWEET, addressed motions concerning forum non conveniens, transfer of venue, and choice of law. The Court granted APL's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Hanjin's affirmative defenses regarding forum non conveniens and venue transfer in the APL Action, and striking (with leave to replead) Hanjin's defense concerning Korean law. Concurrently, the Court denied Hanjin's motion to dismiss the Hanjin Action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that the balance of private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal to a foreign forum or transfer to the Western District of Washington.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawVessel CollisionLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensTransfer of VenueChoice of LawCargo ClaimsInternational ShippingKorean Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1992

Kipper v. Doron Precision Systems, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal regarding claims of marital status and age discrimination under Executive Law § 296. The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, was laid off during a workforce reduction. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the age discrimination claim, finding that the defendant provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the layoff, which the plaintiff failed to rebut as pretextual. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the marital status discrimination claim, citing direct evidence of discriminatory intent from the plaintiff's supervisor, which created a question of credibility suitable for trial. The order was modified, denying summary judgment on the marital status claim and affirming the rest.

Age DiscriminationMarital Status DiscriminationSummary JudgmentWorkforce ReductionEconomic ConditionsPretextDirect EvidenceCredibilityEmployment LawAppeal
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,585 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