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

People v. Oliver Schools, Inc.

The Attorney-General initiated an action to dissolve Oliver Schools, Inc. (OSI) due to its persistent and illegal failure to refund student loans to institutional lenders under the Guaranteed Student Loan program, resulting in substantial arrearages. OSI appealed the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment for dissolution, contending that dissolution was unwarranted without a jury trial and that its due process rights were violated. The Appellate Court affirmed the dissolution, concluding that OSI's conduct constituted a grave and continuing abuse of corporate power that harmed the public welfare. The court found no contested material facts that would necessitate a jury trial and determined that OSI was afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard, thus no due process violation occurred.

Corporate dissolutionBusiness Corporation LawStudent loan refundsConsumer fraudPersistent illegal conductAppellate reviewSummary judgmentDue processPublic welfare abuseHigher Education Services Corp. (HESC)
References
34
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08248 [167 AD3d 415]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2018

Barklee 94 LLC v. Oliver

Barklee 94 LLC appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, which dismissed their complaint against Augustus Oliver et al. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to reopen discovery. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding several causes of action time-barred, including those related to building code violations, notice of excavation, and a party wall easement. The court also dismissed a roof wire/trespass claim, noting the wire was installed by independent contractors. Additionally, a claim seeking completion of a decorative panel was barred by the doctrine of law of the case and the statute of limitations. The plaintiff's claim regarding elevator anchor bolts was also rejected due to insufficient evidence.

building code violationsstatute of limitationssummary judgmentindependent contractor liabilityparty wallencroachment claimappellate reviewproperty lawcivil procedureNew York County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2022

Borelli v. JB IV, LLC

Plaintiff Patrick K. Borelli sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while performing exterior painting work at a property owned by defendant JB IV, LLC and leased to defendant Champz of Binghamton, LLC. He and his wife commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion for summary judgment by dismissing two regulatory violations under Labor Law § 241 (6), but otherwise denied both parties' motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining Labor Law claims, finding unresolved questions of fact regarding the creation of the dangerous condition and the adequacy of safety devices provided. The appeal from the initial order was dismissed as superseded by an amended order.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary Judgment DenialLadder FallConstruction AccidentsProperty Owner LiabilityContractor LiabilitySafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code Violations
References
19
Case No. ADJ8657415
Regular
Oct 06, 2017

Oliver Boutte IV (Deceased) vs. U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a petition for reconsideration filed by U.S. Xpress Enterprises and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The defendants argued that the medical report relied upon by the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) was not substantial evidence, specifically regarding the timing of the employee's death from a pulmonary embolus. The Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report which found the physician's opinion to be substantial medical evidence based on adequate examination and reasoning. The Board concluded the WCJ properly found this opinion more persuasive than the opposing medical opinion.

Oliver Boutte IVU.S. Xpress EnterprisesLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyADJ8657415Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial evidencemedical opinionpulmonary embolusreasonable medical probability
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09275 [178 AD3d 1057]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2019

Oliver v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

The plaintiff, Constance Oliver, commenced a medical malpractice action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., alleging errors during a January 2014 surgery at Kings County Hospital Center and a subsequent failure to timely diagnose and treat an incisional hernia. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding the defendant's expert affirmation insufficient to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, particularly regarding the allegations of delayed diagnosis and treatment and speculative causation arguments.

Medical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentIncisional HerniaProximate CauseTimely DiagnosisAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyBurden of ProofHospital NegligenceKings County Hospital
References
8
Case No. ADJ9620902
Regular
Apr 05, 2019

ANGELA OLIVER vs. ROSS STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Angela Oliver's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order addressing only discovery issues. The WCAB also denied Oliver's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted by the Board. Therefore, the petitions seeking interlocutory review were dismissed and denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary RemedyWCJ DecisionDiscovery IssuesThreshold Issue
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Misseritti v. Mark IV Construction Co.

The case involves a plaintiff's decedent who was injured when a wall collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing it was a 'falling object' case. The court disagreed, holding that the wall's collapse, being at the same level as the worksite, did not fall under the statute's protection for elevation-related risks. Therefore, summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was granted in favor of the defendant. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment to Mark IV Construction Co., the general contractor, on its third-party complaint against the decedent’s employer, as the general contractor did not direct, control, or supervise the employer's work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction AccidentWall CollapseFalling Object DoctrineElevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintGeneral Contractor LiabilityEmployer LiabilityWorker Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliver v. N.L. Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff David Oliver suffered personal injuries when struck by molten metal from a die casting machine during employment, leading to an action against N.L. Industries for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. The Supreme Court erred in granting N.L. Industries summary judgment regarding the adequacy of warnings, as no warnings were present on the machine, and the defendant was aware of the danger, creating a triable issue of fact. However, summary judgment was proper for N.L. Industries concerning liability for defective limit switches manufactured by co-defendant NAMCO Controls. The action is not barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions, as it falls under an exception for employers assuming third-party tortfeasor obligations.

Personal InjuryMolten MetalDie Casting MachineNegligenceBreach of WarrantyStrict LiabilitySummary JudgmentAdequacy of WarningsDefective ProductWorkers' Compensation Exclusivity
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garner v. Behrman Bros. IV, LLC

This case involves plaintiffs Winifred Marie Garner and Sophia Theus, who filed a putative class action against Behrman Brothers IV, LLC and Behrman Brothers Management Corp. (collectively, "Behrman"). Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages and benefits under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), alleging that Behrman, as a "single employer" with Atherotech, Inc., failed to provide 60 days' notice before mass layoffs in February 2016 when Atherotech facilities closed. Behrman moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) and to drop defendants under Rule 21. The Court denied all of Behrman's motions, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Behrman's liability under the WARN Act based on factors like common ownership, common directors/officers, unity of personnel policies, and de facto control.

WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffPlant ClosingUnpaid WagesEmployee BenefitsCorporate LiabilitySingle Employer DoctrineMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
References
30
Case No. ADJ7689073
Regular
Jul 03, 2012

WILLIAM OLIVE vs. COUNTY OF BUTTE, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

In *Olive v. County of Butte*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report in its decision. Therefore, the applicant's request for a rehearing or further review of the original decision was refused.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCOUNTY OF BUTTESHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTPermissibly Self-InsuredYORKADJ7689073ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONPetition for Reconsiderationadministrative law judgerecord
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 104 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