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

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04209
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2023

Mushkudiani v. Racanelli Constr. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Koba Mushkudiani, was injured at a construction site after falling through an improperly covered hole. He filed a personal injury lawsuit, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence against Racanelli Construction Group, Inc., and others. After initially denying summary judgment, the Supreme Court, upon reargument, granted the plaintiff's motion in its entirety. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified this decision, affirming summary judgment for the plaintiff on the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims due to elevation-related hazards and a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i), respectively. However, the court denied summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding insufficient evidence that the defendants created or had notice of the dangerous condition.

construction site injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)elevation-related hazardsummary judgmentreargumentproximate causerecalcitrant workerIndustrial Code § 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i)common-law negligence
References
19
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06846
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2022

Morin v. Heritage Bldrs. Group, LLC

Plaintiff Marco Morin, a taper, was injured in a fall at a construction site owned by Heritage Builders Group, LLC. He sued Heritage and subcontractor Joseph Dupuis, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and partially granted defendants' cross-motions to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding triable issues of fact regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to conflicting expert testimony. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim because the Industrial Code section cited was inapplicable as plaintiff was not using stilts. Finally, the denial of Heritage's motion for indemnification against Dupuis was affirmed as premature due to unresolved liability and contractual ambiguities.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate ReviewElevation HazardScaffoldingExpert TestimonyContractual Dispute
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curry v. American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502

Curry, a former Regional Insurance Underwriting Manager for AIG, sued American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502 and American International Life Assurance Co. of New York ("AI Life") under ERISA § 502(a) after her long-term disability benefits were terminated. Curry suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis and diabetes. AI Life initially approved her benefits but later terminated them, alleging she could perform a sedentary occupation, relying on unverified medical responses. The court found AI Life's decision to be arbitrary and capricious due to its reliance on unreliable medical opinions, failure to clarify the record, and disregard for Curry's doctors' reports. Consequently, the court granted Curry's motion for summary judgment, denying the defendants' motion, and ordered the reinstatement of her benefits with prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

ERISALong-term disabilityBenefits terminationArbitrary and capricious standardConflict of interestMedical opinionUnreliable evidenceSummary judgmentOrthopaedic conditionsDiabetes
References
10
Case No. ADJ10565692
Regular
Nov 08, 2018

BRIAN CLARK vs. LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a sports athletic trainer, Brian Clark, who sustained head and psyche injuries at work. Both the applicant and the defendant sought reconsideration of the initial award. The applicant argued his occupational group was misclassified, while the defendant contended the judge wrongly rejected the medical evaluator's apportionment of permanent disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both petitions, upholding the original findings. The Board found the applicant failed to prove factual error in his occupational group classification and adopted the WCJ's reasoning regarding the apportionment.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTYORK RISK SERVICES GROUPFindings and Awardsports athletic traineroccupational group 390occupational group 311permanent disability apportionmentPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)substantial evidence
References
1
Case No. 1:10-cv-03461-PAC
Regular Panel Decision

Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses six consolidated class actions against Goldman Sachs & Co. and its officers and directors, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs claim the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) security and failed to disclose a Wells notice from the SEC and a subsequent criminal investigation, which led to a significant drop in Goldman Sachs' stock price. The Court consolidated the actions and proceeded to determine the 'most adequate plaintiff' to serve as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). After evaluating several contenders and applying the four *Lax* factors for financial interest, the Court designated the Pension Group as the lead plaintiff. The Pension Group comprises the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the West Virginia Investment Management Board, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Group, and their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP and Labaton Sucharow, LLP as co-lead counsels was approved.

Securities LitigationClass ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRAConsolidation of CasesFinancial InterestRule 23 RequirementsMisleading StatementsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)Goldman Sachs
References
15
Case No. ADJ13704483
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

ROSS GRIMSLEY II vs. SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a Petition for Reconsideration from defendants, San Francisco Giants and ACE American Insurance Company, challenging a WCJ's decision regarding applicant Ross Grimsley II's occupational group code, the admissibility of Dr. Einbund's reports, and apportionment. The Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's use of Occupational Group 493 for the applicant's duties as a baseball coach, validating the admission of Dr. Einbund's reports due to the defendant's denial of liability and lack of timely objection, and upholding the rejection of apportionment opinions for failing to adequately explain the 'how and why' of non-industrial factors as required by legal standards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Occupational Group CodePrimary Treating Physician (PTP)Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)ApportionmentSubstantial EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Geltzer v. Artists Marketing Corp. (In Re Cassandra Group)

Robert L. Geltzer, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Cassandra Group, initiated this action to avoid a $300,000 transfer from the Debtor to Artists Marketing Corporation (AMC), Lawrence E. Bathgate, and The Bathgate Group. The Trustee alleged the transfer constituted a fraudulent conveyance under the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor and Creditor Law, and also sought recovery for unjust enrichment. The court found that The Cassandra Group was insolvent at the time of the transfer and that the transfer lacked fair consideration and good faith. The defendants, AMC, Bathgate, and The Bathgate Group, were deemed to have benefited from the transfer despite their role in allowing a key celebrity (DiCaprio) to rescind an agreement without legal basis, which contributed to the failure of the AMC venture. Consequently, the court ruled that the $300,000 transfer is avoidable and awarded prejudgment interest to the Trustee.

BankruptcyFraudulent ConveyanceConstructive FraudIntentional FraudUnjust EnrichmentInsolvent DebtorPrejudgment InterestChapter 7New York Debtor and Creditor LawEscrow Agreement
References
28
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02549 [216 AD3d 833]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2023

Santiago v. Hanley Group, Inc.

David Santiago, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a roof while performing construction work. He and his wife initiated a lawsuit against the general contractor, Hanley Group, Inc., asserting, among other claims, a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against Hanley Group, Inc. Hanley Group, Inc. appealed, contending that it had complied with its statutory duty or that Santiago's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, or that he was a recalcitrant worker. The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of its contentions and therefore affirmed the lower court's order.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFall from HeightRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSole Proximate CauseGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafety Devices
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,539 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