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. 2017 NY Slip Op 00963 [147 AD3d 823]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Levy v. Baumgarten

Yehonatan Levy and his wife appealed a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment to Levi Baumgarten, dismissing their personal injury complaint. The injury occurred when Levy, a worker on Baumgarten's home renovation, had a saw blade embed in his hand. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6), but the Supreme Court applied the homeowner's exemption and found no supervision or control by Baumgarten. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that incidental commercial use of the home did not forfeit the homeowner's exemption and Baumgarten's actions did not constitute direction or control over the work. Consequently, the summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law claims was upheld.

Personal InjuryHomeowner's ExemptionLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryDirection and ControlCommercial Use Incidental to Residence
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03865 [172 AD3d 1674]
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2019

Matter of Levy v. New York State Educ. Dept.

Petitioner Allen Steven Levy sought a New York license as a psychoanalyst, which was denied by the Education Department based on a lack of good moral character. This determination stemmed from Levy's two prior grand larceny convictions in 2003 and 2005, involving false billings as a social worker. The Hearing Panel and Committee on the Professions upheld the denial, citing a direct relationship between the convictions and the work of a psychoanalyst, and the unreasonable risk posed to public safety. Levy initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Education Department's findings, concluding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence, including Levy's perceived lack of candor and insufficient efforts toward rehabilitation.

License DenialProfessional MisconductMoral CharacterPsychoanalyst LicensureGrand LarcenyFalse BillingCPLR Article 78Education Department DecisionAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2018

Popat v. Levy

Plaintiff Saurin Popat, M.D., a doctor of African and Southeast Asian origin, filed a lawsuit alleging race and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, § 1983, and the NYSHRL, along with tortious interference claims. The defendants include Elad Levy, M.D., The State University of New York at Buffalo, University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Kaleida Health, and University at Buffalo Neurosurgery, Inc. The plaintiff alleges Dr. Levy, who held multiple positions across these entities, created a hostile work environment through racially charged comments and retaliated against him by terminating his faculty position after a discrimination complaint. The court addressed motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. It found that UBNS and Kaleida could be considered 'joint employers' or acting 'under color of state law' for Title VII and § 1983 purposes, respectively, and that Dr. Levy could be liable under the NYSHRL as an aider and abettor. However, the University and the Medical School were granted dismissal of all claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and certain tortious interference claims against UBNS and Kaleida were also dismissed due to insufficient pleading of an actual breach or injury.

Employment DiscriminationRace & National Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 ClaimsSection 1983 ClaimsNew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)Tortious Interference with ContractTortious Interference with Business Relations
References
146
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2012

Robinson v. Bond Street Levy, LLC

Peter Robinson, a laborer for Virginia Construction & Management, Inc., was injured on December 26, 2007, when he fell from a ladder after being struck by ductwork at a building owned by Bond Street Levy, LLC. He and his wife subsequently commenced an action against Bond Street Levy, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs successfully established the absence of adequate safety devices and that this violation was a proximate cause of the injuries. The defendant's arguments regarding a triable issue of fact on sole proximate cause and prematurity of the motion were rejected.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace AccidentLadder FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityProperty OwnerConstruction SiteNondelegable DutyProximate Cause
References
16
Case No. No. 08-01-00506-CV; TC# 99-1678
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Corral, Elvia v. Levi Strauss & Company

Elvia Corral appealed a take-nothing judgment in favor of her former employer, Levi Strauss & Company, regarding a retaliatory discharge claim. Corral was terminated after being on medical leave for over twenty-six months due to an on-the-job injury, exceeding the company's twelve-month leave policy. Despite conflicting medical opinions from her treating physicians, an independent medical examination by Dr. Brian August concluded that Corral could only perform sedentary work with significant restrictions that the company's Return to Work Committee could not accommodate. Corral alleged violation of Texas Labor Code Section 451.001, claiming her termination was due to filing workers' compensation claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence that Levi Strauss's decision was based on its uniformly enforced medical leave policy rather than retaliation, and no reversible errors in evidence admission or exclusion.

Retaliatory dischargemedical leave policyreasonable accommodationemployment terminationfunctional capacity evaluationindependent medical examinationTexas Labor Code Section 451.001circumstantial evidencelegal sufficiencyfactual sufficiency
References
17
Case No. 08-01-00317-CV (TC# 99-1677)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2002

Garcia, Rosa v. Levi Strauss & Co.

Rosa Garcia appealed the trial court's summary judgment dismissing her discrimination claims against Levi Strauss & Co. under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 451.001. Garcia alleged that a pay reduction after returning from medical leave for a work-related injury, and a hostile work environment created by supervisors and management, constituted discrimination for filing workers' compensation claims. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Garcia failed to raise a fact question as to whether the inactive status policy was a pretext for discrimination. Furthermore, while recognizing that a hostile work environment could constitute discrimination under Section 451, the court determined the evidence did not show sufficiently severe and pervasive harassment to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment.

DiscriminationWorkers' CompensationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeEmployment LawCausal LinkInactive Status PolicyPay Reduction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. Levy

This is a declaratory judgment action brought by American Home Assurance Company, an insurer, against Richard Levy, an insured social worker, and Pamela Damian, a patient. American Home sought a declaration that its liability for claims of sexual misconduct against Levy would be limited to $25,000, as stipulated in Levy's professional liability policy, and that it could cease his defense after expending that amount. Damian, who had an underlying malpractice action against Levy, alleged negligence but not explicit sexual misconduct in her judicial complaint, though her NASW complaint did include such allegations. The court denied American Home's motion for summary judgment, concluding that while the sexual misconduct provision was unambiguous, enforceable, and did not violate public policy, the $25,000 sublimit could not be applied at that juncture because Damian had not yet formally alleged erotic physical contact in the judicial proceeding. The court indicated the sublimit would apply if such allegations were made in future pleadings or during trial.

Professional Liability InsuranceSocial Worker MalpracticeSexual Misconduct ExclusionDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic PolicyContract InterpretationInsurance Coverage DisputeTransference PhenomenonProfessional Ethics
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levy v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation

This case addresses a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Daniel Levy against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and several individuals. Levy, a Forester 1 with diabetes, hearing loss, and a learning disability, alleged his employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations and retaliated against him. The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were untimely, accommodations were met, or that their actions were for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The Court granted the Defendants' motion, ruling that claims prior to June 4, 2013, were time-barred. Furthermore, the Court determined Levy failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions, particularly writing, even with requested accommodations, and found Defendants provided legitimate reasons for alleged retaliatory actions.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Section 504 Rehabilitation ActNew York Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Reasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentForester EmploymentDiabetesLearning Disability
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prentice v. Levy

Plaintiff sustained a work-related cervical spine injury in 1998 and underwent surgery by defendant Dr. Walter J. Levy in 1999. After the first surgery failed and a second surgery in 2002 to remove loosened hardware, plaintiff settled a medical malpractice action against Levy for $400,000. The self-insured employer, Tops, Inc., and its administrator, MAC Risk Management, as "the carrier," asserted a workers' compensation lien against the settlement. The Supreme Court provisionally set the lien at $22,442.91 and appointed a referee to determine the final lien and offset amounts, with the carrier bearing the costs. The appellate court affirmed the order, ruling that the interim lien was "without prejudice" and the referee's hearing scope was sufficient to conduct a comprehensive evidentiary hearing, thus causing no prejudice to the carrier.

Workers' Compensation LienMedical MalpracticeSettlement LienInterim LienWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewReferee AppointmentLien EstablishmentOffset PaymentsEvidentiary Hearing
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Levi Strauss & Co.

This is a mandamus proceeding brought by Levi Strauss & Co. seeking to compel a trial court to sever the claims of 105 plaintiffs from a larger group of 110 employees. The plaintiffs allege discrimination for filing worker's compensation claims. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not severing the improperly joined plaintiffs, citing the risk of prejudice and jury confusion. However, the court denied Levi Strauss & Co.'s request to abate the remaining cases, as the definition of discrimination under Texas Labor Code Section 451.001 remains unsettled. Consequently, the mandamus was granted in part for severance but denied in part for abatement.

MandamusSeveranceAbatementJoinderWorkers' CompensationDiscriminationAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawAppellate ReviewJury Confusion
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 110 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