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

Board of Trustees v. Parker (In Re Parker)

The Boards of Trustees of three Carpenters Benefit Funds filed an adversary complaint against David Parker, seeking to deny his bankruptcy discharge or declare certain debts nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727, 523(a)(4), and/or (a)(6). The debts stemmed from Parker Deco, Inc.'s (where Parker was President) failure to make contributions and remit union dues to the Benefit Funds per a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). A prior District Court judgment had been obtained against Parker Deco. During the trial, the Benefit Funds withdrew their § 523(a)(6) and § 727 claims, proceeding solely on § 523(a)(4). The court found that unpaid employer contributions did not constitute 'plan assets' under ERISA without explicit CBA language, thus Parker was not a fiduciary for those. For employee withholdings, the court found no larceny or embezzlement due to lack of fraudulent intent. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, finding the Benefit Funds failed to meet their burden of proof, and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees.

Bankruptcy DischargeabilityERISA Fiduciary DutyDefalcationEmbezzlementUnpaid Employer ContributionsUnion Dues WithholdingsCollective Bargaining AgreementAdversary ProceedingBankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(4)Plan Assets
References
31
Case No. Dkt. 12
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2015

United States v. Parker

The District Court adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying defendant Ronnie Parker's motions to suppress statements and dismiss his indictment for threatening the President. Parker, hospitalized for schizophrenia and experiencing hallucinations, was interviewed by a Secret Service agent. The court ruled his statements were not made in custody, were voluntary despite his mental state, and were not protected by psychotherapist-patient privilege. It also found no outrageous government misconduct.

Motion to SuppressMotion to Dismiss IndictmentThreats Against PresidentMental HealthMiranda RightsCustodial InterrogationVoluntariness of StatementsPsychotherapist-Patient PrivilegeOutrageous Government MisconductSchizophrenia
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvia v. Teman Electrical Contracting, Inc.

Justice S. Miller issues a dissenting and concurring opinion regarding the dismissal of plaintiffs' Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. The dissent argues for granting summary judgment on liability against Parker East and Parker, asserting that Industrial Code regulation 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) mandates protection for 'every hazardous opening,' and that plaintiff Humberto Alvia's injuries resulted from a violation of this unambiguous command. The opinion distinguishes the present case from prior rulings like D’Egidio and Piccuillo by noting the larger size and nature of the opening in question. While advocating for absolute liability against the owner and general contractor under Labor Law § 241 (6), the dissent concurs that the motion should be denied against the electrical subcontractor, Teman, due to unresolved factual questions regarding its control and authority over the work.

Labor LawHazardous OpeningSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndustrial CodeUnguarded OpeningAppellate DecisionSubcontractor LiabilityProximate CauseConstruction Site Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Hearn

Plaintiff Angela Parker filed a Section 1983 action against Jon Parker and Detective David Hearn, alleging wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court determined that Detective Hearn had probable cause to arrest Angela Parker for assault and petit larceny, thereby warranting the dismissal of claims against him. Furthermore, the § 1983 claim against Jon Parker was dismissed because he was not acting under color of state law. Consequently, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseCivil Rights ViolationSection 1983Federal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsAssault
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Parker Hannifan Corp.

Katherine Hall sued Parker HANNIFAN Corporation, her former employer, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Hall claimed unequal work distribution, being "scolded" and "isolated," leading to her early retirement. Parker moved for summary judgment, arguing Hall could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation or adverse employment action, as her working conditions did not worsen after her complaints, and her retirement was voluntary. The court granted Parker's motion, finding Hall failed to demonstrate an adverse employment action or a causal connection between her complaints and any alleged adverse acts, as conditions either remained unchanged or only minimally increased her workload, not enough to constitute material adversity.

RetaliationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionCausal ConnectionConstructive DischargeEEOC Charge
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wheeler v. Parker

Plaintiff James Wheeler filed an action against Sandy Parker, Bruce Potter, and Berkshire Union Free School District, alleging denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment following his termination as an Intervention Worker without a pre-termination hearing. Wheeler, initially hired in 1989, was suspended and terminated in May 2005. The core legal question addressed whether Wheeler's employment constituted a 'property' interest as defined by New York Civil Service Law. The defendants' argument against a pre-termination hearing was found to be unsubstantiated by relevant state law or county commission rules. The court, citing *Ficken v. Vocational Educ. & Extension Bd*, determined that without proper jurisdictional and position classifications by the Columbia County Civil Service Commission, Wheeler's due process rights were violated. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering his reinstatement with back pay and enjoining the District from future terminations without a pre-termination hearing, while dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claims.

Due ProcessFourteenth Amendment42 USC 1988Summary JudgmentPublic EmploymentCivil Service LawNew YorkTerminationPre-termination HearingProperty Interest
References
12
Case No. ADJ6796881
Regular
Sep 12, 2011

Ted Parker vs. COUNTY OF KERN

This case concerns the apportionment of permanent disability for Ted Parker, a deputy sheriff injured in 2008. The County of Kern sought reconsideration of a $50\%$ permanent disability award, arguing the judge failed to properly apportion to a prior $20\%$ award for a 2006 injury. The Board granted reconsideration, agreeing that the initial calculation was incorrect. The WCJ's amended decision correctly apportions the prior disability, resulting in a revised award of $43\%$ permanent disability.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of KernTed ParkerDeputy Sherifflumbar spinepermanent disabilityapportionmentFindings of Fact and AwardWCJPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.

This Memorandum & Order addresses plaintiffs' objections to a Magistrate Judge's recommendations regarding class certification. Plaintiffs Andrew Parker and Eric De-Brauwere sued Time Warner Cable, alleging violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 by disclosing subscriber information. District Judge Glasser adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, denying class certification for monetary claims under Rule 23(b)(2) due to the predominance of monetary relief, and denying full certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because a class action was deemed not superior given the statutory provisions for individual remedies. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation were denied, and the recommendations were adopted.

Class ActionClass CertificationRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Cable Communications Policy ActSubscriber PrivacyMonetary ReliefInjunctive ReliefEastern District of New YorkMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
31
Case No. ADJ7026523; ADJ7026470
Regular
Oct 26, 2011

Nancy Parker vs. FOLSOM ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Nancy Parker's claims of work-related heart injury stemming from exposure to an aerosol cleaner and emotional distress from a co-worker. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the WCJ's findings. The WCJ found that the alleged exposure to the cleaning product likely occurred weeks before the claimed injury date, and the applicant's description of her interaction with the co-worker was significantly inaccurate. Consequently, the WCJ concluded the applicant did not sustain industrial injuries as alleged.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Folsom OrthopedicsHartford Fire Insurance CompanyADJ7026523ADJ7026470cumulative traumaSprayway
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. Schneider

Plaintiff Highland Capital Management, L.P. initiated an action against Leonard Schneider, Leslie Schneider, Scott Schneider, Susan Schneider (the 'Schneiders'), and Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP (JGPC) for breach of contract and tortious interference related to a promissory note transaction. The defendants moved in limine to exclude the testimony of Highland's proposed expert witness, Sean F. O’Shea. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling O’Shea’s testimony inadmissible. The judge found that O'Shea's report contained improper legal conclusions, factual narratives without personal knowledge, speculation on parties' intent, and irrelevant predictions about criminal prosecution. Additionally, Highland's requests to defer the motion or to supplement the expert report were denied.

Breach of ContractTortious InterferencePromissory NotesSecurities FraudInsider TradingExpert TestimonyMotion in LimineAdmissibility of EvidenceFederal Rules of EvidenceDaubert Standard
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 48 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