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
Aug 08, 1975

Flynn v. Mario & Di Bono Plastering Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 8, 1975, denying the third-party defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or to compel plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff to provide certain particulars. The underlying case involves a wrongful death claim by plaintiffs, whose testate iron worker allegedly died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the manufacturer and supplier of the asbestos product for failing to comply with statutes, rules, and regulations. The third-party plaintiff, in turn, charged the appellant (third-party defendant) with similar violations. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, directing the plaintiffs-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent to furnish a further bill of particulars. The decision highlighted the requirement in tort actions to specifically identify any statutory violations asserted.

asbestos exposurewrongful deathlung cancerstatutory violationbill of particularsnegligencethird-party claimappellate reviewmotion to precludecause of action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porcelli v. PMA Associates

Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband's death from respiratory failure, alleging it was an occupational disease from toxic chemical exposure during his 30+ years as a printer. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board later precluded the claimant's medical expert's report and testimony due to untimely filing under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (d) (12). This preclusion led the Board to find no established causal relationship, closing the case without benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate support for precluding the expert's evidence due to procedural non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsMedical ExpertReport PreclusionTimely FilingProcedural RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. WCB G074 4160
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2013

Matter of Qualls v. Bronx District Attorney's Office

Claimant William Sanchez sustained a work-related injury to his left knee and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. After two surgeries, his treating physician determined he reached maximum medical improvement and released him to return to work with restrictions. Sanchez then obtained an order of preclusion due to the employer/carrier's failure to provide medical evidence. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this order and rescinded the preclusion order because the employer/carrier provided the required medical evidence before the preclusion order was issued. The employer/carrier appeals the finding that the claimant's period of temporary total disability extends beyond the date of maximum medical improvement.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsKnee InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementPreclusion OrderAppellate DivisionMedical EvidenceTemporary Total DisabilityWork-Related InjurySedgwick CMS
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on October 3, 2011, which declared the defendant's answer stricken due to non-compliance with a conditional preclusion order from October 31, 2006, and limited the trial to the issue of damages. This order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not complying with discovery requests and did not present a meritorious defense, which was necessary to vacate the preclusion order. The court also clarified that a Workers' Compensation Board panel decision dated August 28, 2009, regarding the plaintiff's accident-related disability, does not have preclusive effect. Additionally, a prior decision and order of this Court, entered on April 9, 2013, was recalled and vacated.

Discovery SanctionsStriking AnswerConditional Preclusion OrderSelf-Executing OrderMeritorious DefenseReasonable ExcuseWorkers' Compensation BoardPreclusive EffectAppellate ReviewRecall and Vacate Order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Olistin v. Wellington

Claimant, a driver for Winthrop Car Service, sought workers' compensation benefits after a 1995 automobile accident. Winthrop Car Service, the employer, failed to appear at multiple hearings, leading to a preclusion order against presenting witnesses. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied Winthrop's request to vacate the preclusion order and found an employer-employee relationship existed, awarding benefits to the claimant. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying Winthrop's request to vacate the preclusion order, citing lack of explanation for their non-appearance. The court also affirmed the Board's finding of an employment relationship, noting Winthrop's control over the claimant's day-to-day work activities.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentPreclusion OrderAdjournmentExcusable NeglectAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceControl Test
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dean v. United States

The government sought reconsideration of the grant of Kevin Dean's coram nobis petition, arguing preclusion and requesting discovery on three elements for coram nobis relief. The court rejected the government's preclusion argument as waived and without merit. It denied discovery on 'continuing legal consequences' and 'compelling reasons,' finding Dean's job termination a clear civil consequence and actual innocence not a prerequisite for the writ. However, the court granted the government's request for discovery on the element of 'undue delay,' allowing inquiry into Dean's awareness of the conviction's collateral civil consequences prior to his termination.

Coram NobisReconsideration MotionExpungement of RecordDue ProcessGuilty PleaCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataCriminal Record AccuracyPublic LewdnessCivil Consequences
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2007

Guzman v. 4030 Bronx Boulevard Associates L.L.C.

This appeal concerns the preclusion of expert testimony from a neuropsychologist, Dr. Elkhonon Goldberg, regarding the causation of infant plaintiff Tyrone Guzman's neurological deficits. The plaintiff has a history of multiple head traumas, and the lawsuit stems from alleged injuries sustained during a bathroom ceiling collapse. The trial court precluded Dr. Goldberg's testimony due to a lack of objective medical foundation to establish that the June 2001 incident was the proximate cause, subsequently dismissing the complaint. The appellate court agreed with the preclusion of testimony on causation but found an abuse of discretion in denying a continuance to allow plaintiffs to secure another medical expert. The matter was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Expert TestimonyNeuropsychologyTraumatic Brain InjuryCausationMotion in LimineContinuanceAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary StandardPersonal InjuryHead Trauma
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dominick v. Charles Millar & Son Co.

Plaintiffs Nicholas Dominick and Lorraine J. Dominick (who later abandoned her claim) commenced an action against Millar defendants for injuries sustained by Nicholas Dominick due to asbestos exposure. A jury found that products supplied by the Millar defendants caused Nicholas Dominick's asbestos exposure due to their failure to warn, and that this failure substantially contributed to his injuries. The Millar defendants appealed the judgment, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding causation, the preclusion of certain witnesses, and the jury's apportionment of fault and the damages awarded. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence for causation, no abuse of discretion in witness preclusion, and the jury's findings on fault and damages were reasonable.

Asbestos exposureToxic tortProduct liabilityFailure to warnCausationSpecific causationJury verdictAppellate reviewSufficiency of evidenceWitness preclusion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Schimmel

This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to alleged employment misconduct, specifically fighting with a co-worker. The claimant challenges this decision, arguing that the Board should be bound by a prior determination in a co-worker's case which found no misconduct. The court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the application of issue preclusion. It reasoned that the issues in the two proceedings (claimant's misconduct vs. co-worker's misconduct) were not identical, and the findings in the co-worker's case regarding the claimant's actions were not necessarily decided. The court noted that while the inconsistent results could have been avoided by consolidation, the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and issue preclusion did not apply.

unemployment benefitsmisconductissue preclusioncollateral estoppeladministrative lawLabor Lawappellate reviewcredibility determinationfactual inconsistencyco-worker dispute
References
6
Case No. 90 B 10421
Regular Panel Decision

Borchers v. DBL Liquidating Trust (In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.)

Sandra Borchers appealed the Bankruptcy Court's order disallowing her claim against Drexel, Burnham, Lambert, Inc. for mishandling her investment account. Borchers had previously received an arbitration award against a Drexel employee, Mark Gilbert, and a settlement from his supervisor, James Strainer, and Smith Barney. The Bankruptcy Court applied collateral estoppel, concluding that Borchers had been fully compensated. On appeal, Borchers argued that an unconfirmed arbitration award should not have preclusive effect and that she was not fully compensated, particularly for damages caused by Strainer. The Senior District Judge affirmed, holding that unconfirmed arbitration awards can have preclusive effect and that Borchers' damages, arising from Gilbert's conduct, were fully resolved by the prior arbitration and settlement.

ArbitrationCollateral EstoppelBankruptcy ClaimSecurities FraudInvestment AccountBroker MisconductVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorControlling Person LiabilityNASD Award
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 147 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