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
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. 2013-1461 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Performance Plus Med., P.C. v. Nationwide Ins.

This case involves an appeal by Performance Plus Medical, P.C., acting as an assignee, against Nationwide Ins. The plaintiff sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Term affirmed this order, ruling that the defendant's timely verification request tolled the insurer's time to pay or deny the claim, thus rendering the plaintiff's action premature due to a failure to respond to the request. Additionally, the court found that the defendant had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case for denying claims related to the first cause of action based on the workers' compensation fee schedule, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentVerification requestInsurer's time to payPremature actionWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court orderFirst-party benefitsAssigned claims
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wills v. Radioshack Corp.

Plaintiff Jaime Wills initiated a putative class action against RadioShack Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law regarding overtime pay calculation. Wills contended that RadioShack's practice of paying performance-based bonuses to its store managers rendered its use of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Fluctuating Workweek (FWW) method unlawful, requiring instead a higher 'time-and-a-half' rate. RadioShack moved to dismiss, asserting its compliance with NYLL, which aligns with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court determined that performance-based bonuses were compatible with the FWW method and that a 2011 DOL Final Ruling did not alter this interpretation. Consequently, the Court granted RadioShack's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Fluctuating WorkweekOvertime PayPerformance BonusesNew York Labor LawFair Labor Standards ActClass ActionMotion to DismissCollateral EstoppelWage and Hour DisputeEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Mosaic & Terrazzo Welfare, Pension, Annuity & Vacation Funds v. High Performance Floors, Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various employee benefit funds, brought this action under ERISA and LMRA to collect employer contributions from defendants HPF, Inc. and High Performance Floors, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that HPF was an alter ego of, or single employer with, High Performance, aiming to evade obligations under a collective bargaining agreement. Following a non-jury trial, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold concluded that High Performance and HPF were indeed alter egos and constituted a single employer. This determination was based on compelling evidence of shared management, employees, operations, equipment, and a common business purpose, coupled with an intent to circumvent union obligations. Consequently, the court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for the unpaid contributions.

Alter Ego DoctrineSingle Employer DoctrineERISA EnforcementLMRA LitigationUnpaid Employer ContributionsCollective Bargaining Agreement BreachEmployee Benefit Fund ProtectionCorporate DisregardLabor Relations LawJoint and Several Liability
References
30
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02769 [195 AD3d 140]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2021

Robinson v. Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc.

This class action sought unpaid gratuities under Labor Law § 196-d. The central question was whether an employer has a right to contractual indemnification from a third party for claims brought under this statute. The court determined that contractual indemnification in this context is against public policy, citing similar rulings on other labor laws like the FLSA. The Supreme Court had dismissed the third-party complaint, and this appellate decision affirmed that dismissal, stating that allowing such indemnification would undermine employers' willingness to comply with their statutory obligations.

unpaid gratuitiesLabor Lawcontractual indemnificationpublic policyemployer liabilitywage violationsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)third-party claimsclass actionappellate review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Crisanti

This Supreme Court order unanimously affirmed a prior decision that denied a petition to vacate an arbitration award. The dispute involved a terminated arbitrageur's entitlement to a bonus. The court found no manifest disregard of the law by the arbitration panel, noting that the legal principles were not well-defined. It upheld the arbitrators' finding of an implied right to a bonus based on the parties' dealings and industry practice. The court also determined that the refusal to hear a proposed witness was not fundamentally unfair as the testimony would have been cumulative, and an alleged misrepresentation by respondent's attorney did not constitute fraud. Finally, the award was found not to offend public policy.

Arbitration AwardBonus EntitlementEmployment DisputeContract InterpretationArbitrageurJudicial ReviewManifest Disregard of LawWitness TestimonyFraud AllegationPublic Policy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2012

Delaney v. Bank of America Corp.

John Delaney sued Bank of America (BoA) alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and breach of an oral contract related to his internal transfer. Delaney claimed his termination was age-discriminatory and that BoA reneged on a promise regarding account assignments and compensation. BoA moved for summary judgment, asserting Delaney failed to show a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the alleged oral contract was too vague, superseded by discretionary bonus policies, and that Delaney was an at-will employee. The court found insufficient admissible evidence for age discrimination, supporting BoA's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (reduction in force based on performance). Additionally, the court ruled the oral agreement lacked definiteness and was overridden by BoA's discretionary bonus plan, and as an at-will employee, Delaney's termination was permissible. Consequently, the court granted BoA's motion for summary judgment on both claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentReduction in ForceAt-Will EmploymentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBut-For CausationOral AgreementDiscretionary Bonus
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Harry Winston, Inc.

Plaintiff George Curtis, a former manager for defendant Harry Winston, Inc. in Venezuela, sued the New York-based company for unpaid vacation bonuses, severance, and interest under Venezuelan labor law, as well as breach of employment contract regarding relocation expenses and an annual bonus. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing Venezuelan law was contrary to New York policy and contract claims were barred by the Statute of Frauds. The Southern District of New York, applying New York's conflict of laws rules, determined that Venezuelan substantive law would govern the statutory claims, upholding subject matter jurisdiction and the principles of international comity. The court also found New York law applicable to the contract claims but ruled that the Statute of Frauds did not bar them, as the at-will employment agreement could have been performed within one year. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.

Conflict of LawsDiversity JurisdictionVenezuelan Labor LawStatute of FraudsEmployment ContractMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionComityChoice of LawForeign Law Enforcement
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manuel Marmolejo v. Birdair, Inc.

Plaintiff, an Hispanic national origin site superintendent, was hired by Birdair, Inc. in 1987. After a performance review in 1993 where he ranked last, he was placed on layoff status in June 1994 due to a reduction in the workforce. He subsequently filed charges with the EEOC alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation for denied bonuses. Plaintiff resigned in November 1994, citing intolerable working conditions and alleged racial slurs by a coworker. Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that the layoff was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court found insufficient evidence for constructive discharge or discriminatory motive, noting that other non-Hispanic superintendents were also laid off. Furthermore, the court found the bonuses were paid when funds became available, dismissing the retaliation claim. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Summary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActNational Origin DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1871Constructive DischargeRetaliation ClaimPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting AnalysisPerformance Evaluation
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 1,315 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