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

In Re St. James Mechanical, Inc.

ITT Sheraton Corporation (ITT) moved to extend its time to file a proof of claim or to have the notice of appointment of the Creditors Committee deemed an informal claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of St. James Mechanical, Inc. (the Debtor). The Court denied both aspects of ITT's motion. The Court ruled that ITT no longer possessed a pre-petition claim against the Debtor because it was discharged upon the confirmation of the reorganization plan, thus making Rule 9006(b) for extending claim filing time inapplicable. Additionally, the Court found that the Notice of Appointment did not constitute a valid informal proof of claim as it was not filed by ITT and lacked sufficient intent. However, the Court determined that despite ITT's failure to file a timely claim, it is still entitled to the treatment outlined in the confirmed plan, as the plan's provisions are binding on all parties, acting as res judicata, even if they contained legal errors in ITT's inclusion.

BankruptcyChapter 11Proof of ClaimExcusable NeglectPlan ConfirmationDischargeDue ProcessRes JudicataInformal ClaimCreditors Committee
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Elias v. New York City Human Resources Administration

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits claim, filed on March 10, 1987, was timely. This decision came despite the claimant's initial failure to provide timely written notice, which was excused because the employer had actual notice of the injury. The claimant suffered a back injury on October 15, 1985, while at work, pushing a file cabinet. The Board found that the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 did not bar the claim. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling in favor of the claimant.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTimely NoticeActual NoticeBack InjuryEmployer LiabilityBoard DecisionAppealExcused NoticeOccupational Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hazzard v. Adams Russell Cable Services

Claimant, a line technician, sustained a left knee injury in January 1987 but did not file a workers' compensation claim until August 1995. The employer's carrier argued the claim was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, a contention upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Board. On appeal, the claimant argued that a C-4 medical report from 1987 or an advance payment of compensation should have prevented the claim from being time-barred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no evidence that the C-4 report was filed with the Board within the two-year statutory period, nor that the employer or carrier made an advance payment to waive the statute of limitations.

Workers' CompensationTime-barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsAdvance PaymentMedical ReportBoard AffirmationAppellate ReviewKnee InjuryLine Technician
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schwartz v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed April 25, 2012, ruled that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to her established work-related stress claim. The second decision, filed May 2, 2012, denied her payment for intermittent lost time. The court affirmed both decisions, finding that the employer's independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions regarding cardiac conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's determination that the claimant's Friday absences were for convenience, not disability, was also upheld by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealsCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyEnlarged Left AtriumWork-Related StressAdjustment DisorderIntermittent Lost Time Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cerami v. Rochester City School District

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that found a claimant’s benefit claim untimely. The claim, filed in 1980, stemmed from a mental breakdown in 1966-1967 alleged to be work-related. The Board ruled the claimant was mentally competent to file within the two-year statutory period (WCL § 28), thus rejecting the tolling provision for mental incompetency (WCL § 115). The appellate court reviewed the medical testimony of Dr. Leve and Dr. Pisetzner, concluding the Board misconstrued their findings regarding the claimant’s capacity to comprehend his mental illness as work-related, despite general competence to file other claims. The court found overwhelming medical evidence indicated the claimant was mentally incapable of filing a claim for employment-induced mental illness and therefore deemed the claim timely under WCL § 115 due to continuing mental incapacity. Additionally, the court found substantial, virtually unanimous medical testimony confirming the work-related causation of the claimant’s mental illness, contrary to the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s determination. The decision was reversed, compensation benefits granted, and the matter remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation ClaimTimeliness of ClaimMental IncompetencyTolling Statute of LimitationsParanoid SchizophreniaEmployment-Induced Psychological InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical Testimony InterpretationAppellate ReviewReversal of Board Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alleyne v. Time Moving & Storage Inc.

Plaintiffs Marcel Alleyne and Earl Legrande filed a class action lawsuit against Time Moving & Storage, Inc. and The Time Record Storage Company, LLC, alleging failure to pay overtime wages in violation of federal FLSA and New York Labor Law. Defendants invoked the motor carrier exemption as a defense. The parties reached a class settlement agreement for the state law claims, which was provisionally certified. Following objections from some class members regarding the fairness of the settlement, class certification, and attorney's fees, the Court, presided over by Judge Vitaliano, granted final class certification and approved the settlement. The Court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the risks of litigation, denied the objectors' motion to intervene, and approved attorney's fees of $60,000.

Class ActionOvertime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawMotor Carrier ExemptionWage and Hour ClaimsClass SettlementSettlement ApprovalAttorney's FeesRule 23 Certification
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tasini v. New York Times Co., Inc.

Jonathan Tasini, a freelance writer, filed a complaint against The New York Times Company, challenging a "Release Agreement" offered to writers after a prior copyright infringement judgment (Tasini I). Tasini alleged the agreement, which required writers to waive claims to keep their articles in electronic databases, was unlawful and unenforceable, citing interference with copyright relief, unconscionability, duress, and breach of good faith. The New York Times moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court, presided over by Judge Robert L. Carter, granted the dismissal, concluding that Tasini lacked both constitutional and prudential standing and failed to establish federal question jurisdiction, as the dispute largely involved state contract law. The dismissal was without prejudice.

Copyright LitigationArticle III StandingPrudential StandingFederal JurisdictionContract DisputeMotion to DismissDeclaratory ReliefFreelance JournalismElectronic DatabasesSouthern District of New York
References
45
Case No. ADJ9173159
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

GARY COTTLE vs. TONY'S EXPRESS, CALIFORNIA TRUCKERS' SAFETY ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior administrative law judge's (WCJ) order. This order addressed penalties for unreasonable delay in payment and sanctions for bad faith litigation. Crucially, the WCAB has not received a petition for reconsideration from defendant CTSA and requires them to submit a copy of their petition and proof of timely filing within 20 days. Failure to comply will result in the WCAB proceeding with only the applicant's petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5814Unreasonable DelayCompensation PaymentLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith LitigationLienTimely FiledProof of Service
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mickelson v. Value Construction

Claimant, a carpenter, sought workers' compensation benefits for a left wrist injury in April 2013. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled the claim time-barred but later rescinded that decision, establishing the claim with a disablement date of May 6, 2013, corresponding to the diagnosis of a work-related ligament injury and arthritis. The employer and carrier appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding regarding the timely filing and date of disablement, noting it was supported by substantial evidence, despite the claimant's earlier symptoms. However, the Court found that the Board failed to address a previously raised issue concerning whether the left wrist injury was consequentially related to a 2003 right wrist injury. Consequently, the Court modified the Board's decision by remitting the matter for further proceedings to address this unadjudicated issue.

Workers' CompensationTimeliness of ClaimDate of DisablementOccupational DiseaseLeft Wrist InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeLigament InjuryArthritisMedical DiagnosisRemittal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 11,043 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