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
Oct 15, 1998

High View Fund, L.P. v. Hall

Plaintiffs, The High View Fund, L.P. and The High View Fund, filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims against E. William Hall and Karen W. Hall for violations of federal securities laws, fraudulent inducement, Delaware Blue Sky laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract. The claims stem from the plaintiffs' $1 million investment in United Golf Properties, Inc. and the defendants' alleged misuse of the company's assets and misrepresentations in an Offering Memorandum. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court, presided over by District Judge Scheindlin, granted dismissal for the federal securities law claims and common law fraud claims, allowing leave to amend. Additionally, the conversion and breach of contract claims were dismissed with prejudice. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for the Delaware Blue Sky law claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractDelaware Blue Sky LawInvestment Fraud
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1987

Ebbecke v. Bay View Environmental Services, Inc.

Charles Ebbecke suffered severe injuries from a chemical splash while waste was being loaded into a tanker. He initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Bay View Environmental Services, Inc., the company responsible for loading. Bay View subsequently impleaded Grumman Aerospace Corp., Ebbecke's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. Grumman, in turn, claimed indemnification from Bay View under a purchase order contract. The Supreme Court dismissed Grumman's indemnification claim. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the contractual clause did not explicitly demonstrate an "unmistakable intent" for Bay View to indemnify Grumman for Grumman's own negligence, especially considering ambiguities are resolved against the drafter, Grumman.

Contractual IndemnificationPersonal InjuryThird-Party ClaimNegligenceContract InterpretationTypewritten vs. Printed ProvisionsRisk AllocationUnmistakable IntentAmbiguity in ContractAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blouse Workers' Union, Local 23-25 v. South Ocean Sportswear, Inc.

The Union moved to confirm an arbitration award directing South Ocean Sportswear, Inc. to pay $4,175 to Shiu Lun Lee for lost wages due to an unjustified discharge. Initially, an arbitrator sustained Lee's discharge, but later determined that severe translation inaccuracies during the first hearing resulted in a substantial failure of due process, rendering the prior award a nullity. A second hearing was conducted, leading to an award in Lee's favor. South Ocean moved to vacate this second award, arguing the arbitrator lacked power to reopen a final award and to impose damages for the post-first-hearing period. The court, however, found that the arbitrator acted within the broad powers granted by the collective bargaining agreement, including determining arbitrability and procedural matters, and that the arbitrator's findings of fact and conclusions of law were not subject to judicial review. Consequently, the court confirmed the arbitration award and denied South Ocean's application to vacate it.

ArbitrationDue Process ViolationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration Award ConfirmationArbitrator AuthorityReopening Arbitration AwardProcedural Due ProcessTranslation ErrorEmployee DischargeLost Wages
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08117 [155 AD3d 1633]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2017

Flowers v. Harborcenter Development, LLC

Plaintiff, David Flowers, was injured on a construction site when a bundle of steel rebar, being hoisted by a crane, fell and struck his head. He sued Harborcenter Development, LLC, and others under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted Flowers' motion for partial summary judgment on his § 240 (1) claim and partially denied the defendants' cross-motion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the granting of summary judgment on the § 240 (1) claim, finding sufficient evidence of a falling object due to inadequate safety devices. However, the court modified the order, granting the defendants' cross-motion regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-6.1 (d), as that regulation's mandate does not apply to the type of crane used. The court also found triable issues of fact remaining for the § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (f) (6).

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1) ClaimFalling ObjectSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewIndustrial Code ViolationProximate CauseComparative NegligenceCrane OperationsRebar Movement
References
14
Case No. GRO 0030870
Regular
Aug 08, 2008

ALEJANDRA LOPEZ vs. OCEAN VIEW FLOWERS, ARCH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and modified a previous award, finding the applicant's average weekly earnings entitled her to the minimum permanent disability rate of $100 per week due to her seasonal employment status. The Board also reversed the exclusion of medical reports and awarded payment for self-procured medical treatment by lien claimant Dr. Duell, holding that an active claim application is not a prerequisite for compensable treatment. Consequently, the applicant's permanent disability award was reduced, and Dr. Duell's lien claim was allowed for all services rendered.

ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersAverage Weekly EarningsSeasonal WorkerMinimum Permanent Disability RateSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentDismissed ApplicationPetition to ReopenDue Process
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03677 [218 AD3d 435]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2023

Correa v. 455 Ocean Assoc., LLC

Cesar Correa (plaintiff) commenced actions against 455 Ocean Associates, LLC, and Weinreb Management, LLC (defendants) to recover damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff alleged injuries sustained while working on a construction site, specifically claiming violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) after he dropped a roll of tar paper while descending an extension ladder. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendants subsequently appealed this order. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorker SafetyElevated Work SiteExtension LadderNondelegable DutyProximate Cause
References
4
Case No. 532410
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Matter of Flowers v. Alkem Plumbing Inc.

Claimant Anthony Flowers, a plumber, suffered a right wrist injury in 2012, leading to an 85% schedule loss of use award. Later, he sought additional workers' compensation benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (v), arguing his inability to work was solely due to his wrist injury, based on a physician's report. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially approved these benefits, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the claimant failed to prove his impaired earning capacity was solely due to the injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing the claimant's own testimony that other factors, such as "bad knees," limited education, and lack of computer skills, also contributed to his inability to find employment, thus failing to meet the statutory "due solely" requirement for additional benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UseEarning CapacityAppellate ReviewCausationDisability BenefitsMedical ImpairmentNew York LawAdministrative ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. GOL 96015
Regular
Jul 12, 2007

PLACIDO SALGADO vs. OCEAN VIEW FLOWERS, INC., ARCH INSURANCE by LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS INC.

This case involves a dispute over permanent disability and apportionment for a worker injured in 2003, following a prior 1992 injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the original decision erred by not properly considering apportionment due to a prior settlement. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the case for further proceedings to develop the medical record on apportionment and permanent disability, emphasizing the need for substantial medical evidence.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDGOL 96015PLACIDO SALGADOOCEAN VIEW FLOWERSARCH INSURANCELWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS INC.RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND AWARDPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENT
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sinagra v. Atlantic Ocean Shipping, Ltd.

Plaintiff Vincent Sinagra, a longshore worker, was injured on November 27, 1997, while discharging cargo from the M/V Atlantic Ocean at Howland Hook Marine Terminal in Staten Island, New York. His right hand was crushed and index finger amputated when a container, from which he was removing a stacking shoe, was suddenly lowered by a fellow Howland employee. Sinagra sued Atlantic Ocean Shipping Limited, the vessel owner, alleging negligence under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Azrack, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the Atlantic Ocean did not breach its 'turnover' duty, 'active involvement' duty, or duty to 'intervene'. The court concluded that Sinagra's injury was solely caused by the negligence of his employer, Howland, and his fellow dock gang members.

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActMaritime LawStevedoring OperationsVessel NegligenceSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryAdmiralty JurisdictionShipowner LiabilityLongshoreman InjuryCargo Discharge
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Little Flower for Rehabilitation & Nursing

The plaintiff, Stephanie Thomas, commenced an action against Little Flower for Rehabilitation & Nursing, 1199 SEIU National Benefit Fund, and 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (Local 1199). She alleged unlawful retaliation and breach of contract by Little Flower, breach of duty of fair representation by Local 1199, and COBRA violations by all three defendants. The COBRA claim against Local 1199 was later dismissed. Local 1199 moved to dismiss the remaining claims against it. The court found that Thomas plausibly alleged a meritorious grievance and that Local 1199 acted arbitrarily by failing to process her grievance or investigate it, thereby breaching its duty of fair representation. Consequently, Local 1199's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

Employment TerminationUnlawful RetaliationBreach of ContractDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissLabor LawUnion GrievanceCollective Bargaining AgreementERISACOBRA Claim
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 172 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