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
Feb 29, 2012

House v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Sheryl L. House sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her disability insurance benefits application. A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, concluding that the Administrative Law Judge's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled was supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying Plaintiff's similar motion. The District Judge adopted this Report and Recommendation in its entirety, thus upholding the denial of disability benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician's RuleMedical-Vocational GuidelinesCredibility AssessmentPhysical ImpairmentsJudicial ReviewMotion for Judgment on Pleadings
References
54
Case No. Dkt. No. 1
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2012

Hamilton v. Colvin

Plaintiff William Hamilton applied for Social Security disability benefits, which were denied by the Commissioner. Hamilton sought judicial review of this decision in federal court. Magistrate Judge Bianchini issued a Report and Recommendation, suggesting the court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the case for further proceedings due to errors in evaluating severe impairments, credibility, and the use of Medical-Vocational Guidelines. Senior District Judge Scullin accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, granting Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denying the Defendant's, and reversing the Commissioner's denial of benefits. The case was remanded for reconsideration of Plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome, other alleged severe impairments, and the credibility determination.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActJudicial reviewAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeResidual Functional CapacityCredibility determinationVocational expertRemand
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2009

Corson v. Astrue

This case involves an appeal of the Commissioner's decision to deny Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits to Arnell M. Corson. Plaintiff Corson suffers from chronic neck and back discomfort and depression. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended granting the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation, finding that the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that Corson retained the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of unskilled sedentary work, despite her impairments, and was therefore not disabled.

Social Security DisabilitySSDI Benefits AppealFunctional CapacitySedentary WorkAffective DisorderDegenerative Disc DiseaseChronic PainResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law Judge DecisionTreating Physician Rule
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2013

Finkel v. Universal Electric Corp.

Dr. Gerald Finkel, as Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry, initiated this action against Universal Electric Corp. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to make required contributions to various employee benefit funds, violating ERISA and LMRA. Despite proper service, Universal Electric Corp. failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a request for default judgment. Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Poliak recommended granting the default judgment and awarding $14,914.34 in damages, which included unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs. District Judge Margo K. Brodie adopted this Report and Recommendation, thereby granting the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment.

Default judgmentERISALMRAUnpaid contributionsEmployee benefitsCollective bargaining agreementAttorney's feesLiquidated damagesInterestAudit deficiency
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2006

Flanagan v. United States

Plaintiff Brendan A. Flanagan sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for severe injuries sustained from a fall while performing boiler maintenance in the Dulski Federal Building in Buffalo, New York. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, citing sovereign immunity and the independent contractor exception. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended granting the motion, finding that the government had contractually delegated maintenance and supervision duties to a private contractor and did not control the plaintiff's work. The court further ruled that claims based on non-delegable duties or strict liability under New York Labor Law Section 240 are impermissible under the FTCA. Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted the recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss and closing the case.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissNegligenceNon-delegable DutyStrict LiabilityPersonal InjuryBoiler AccidentWorkplace Safety
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Barbara E. Martin filed an action under the Employees’ Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA), alleging wrongful denial of total and permanent disability benefits by her former employer, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, who recommended granting DuPont's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. District Judge Arcara, upon a de novo review, adopted the proposed findings. The court determined that DuPont's denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, as Martin failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate a total and permanent disability as defined by the Plan, particularly regarding her condition immediately prior to termination. Consequently, DuPont's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewTotal and Permanent DisabilityMedical EvidenceRotator Cuff InjuryImpingement SyndromeChronic Tendinitis
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1995

Miller v. Chater

Plaintiff initiated this action to seek review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' decision establishing June 1, 1992, as the onset date for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits due to alleged disability from mental retardation. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman issued a Report and Recommendation, advising denial of the Secretary's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand for reconsideration. The Magistrate Judge found errors in the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) assessment of the plaintiff's functional limitations, particularly regarding social domain, and noted the ALJ's failure to consider the retroactivity inference from the Zebley class action stipulation. District Judge Arcara reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and with no objections filed, adopted its findings. Consequently, the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the case was remanded to the Secretary for further reconsideration, emphasizing a misapplication of post-Zebley requirements for adjudicating children’s SSI benefits claims.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)Disability BenefitsMental RetardationChild Disability ClaimsAdministrative ReviewSocial Security ActAge-appropriate functioningMedical EvidenceFunctional LimitationsOnset Date
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2007

Mattison v. Potter

Plaintiff Joy L. Mattison, an African-American female, sued her employer, the United States Postal Service, and its Postmaster General, John E. Potter, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. Mattison claimed she experienced a hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation due to race, sex, and disability, stemming from alleged harassment by co-workers and supervisors after she reported an overtime issue. She experienced anxiety/depression and requested reasonable accommodation to avoid her original work unit. After various internal processes and EEOC complaints, the defendant moved for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment, finding that several claims were abandoned and that Mattison failed to present sufficient evidence for a racially or sexually hostile work environment. Furthermore, the court determined her depressive disorder did not 'substantially limit' a major life activity under the Rehabilitation Act, as her work restriction was specific to one unit rather than a broad class of jobs. The Chief Judge adopted the recommendation, granting summary judgment to the defendants and closing the case.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRehabilitation ActHostile Work EnvironmentDisparate TreatmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentFederal CourtDisability DiscriminationDepressive Disorder
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gesauldi v. Dan Yant Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various Local 282 trust funds, initiated an action against Dan Yant Inc. for failing to make required contributions to the funds, violating ERISA and LMRA. Defendant defaulted after being served. Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann recommended granting default judgment to plaintiffs, awarding $2,418.28 in unpaid contributions, $1,300.00 in audit fees, $3,313.64 in attorney's fees and costs, and prejudgment interest and liquidated damages. District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto reviewed the Report and Recommendation, found no clear error, and adopted it as the court's opinion, ordering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Default JudgmentERISALMRAUnpaid ContributionsTrust FundsCollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsAudit FeesAttorney FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
26
Case No. 01 Cr. 1004 (NG)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2001

United States v. Agnello

The defendants, including New York Shredding Corp. and Carmine Agnello, moved to suppress electronic surveillance evidence and requested a Franks v. Delaware hearing. They alleged that the underlying eavesdropping warrant application contained false statements or reckless omissions regarding property ownership and probable cause. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy recommended denying the motion, concluding that sufficient probable cause existed for the warrant even without the disputed "rent" conversations, citing corroborated confidential informant information, detective expertise, and other intercepted communications. District Judge Nina Gershon adopted the Report and Recommendation, thereby denying the defendants' motion to suppress the evidence.

Electronic SurveillanceProbable CauseFranks HearingMotion to SuppressWiretapFourth AmendmentAffiantReckless Disregard for TruthVehicle TheftChop Shop
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,037 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