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
Oct 20, 1993

Olsen v. We'll Manage, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal by We'll Manage, Inc. from an order denying its cross motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiff Gary Olsen under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. We'll Manage, Inc. contended that Olsen was its special employee, providing evidence of direct supervision, work assignments, the right to fire him, and payment signed by its personnel, despite his wages being drawn from a general employer's account. The court found this established a special employment relationship. As Olsen received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, he is statutorily barred from maintaining an action against the special employer. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted We'll Manage, Inc.'s cross motion, and dismissed the complaint against the appellant.

Special EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarSummary JudgmentLabor LawDirect SupervisionControlAffidavitDeposition TestimonyGeneral EmployerAppellate Reversal
References
6
Case No. ADJ7422993
Regular
Apr 06, 2015

SHIRLEY LESCALLETT vs. WAL-MART, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, YORK RISK SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sought to select a pain management specialist as her primary treating physician. The employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) did not have any pain management specialists within the 15-mile/30-minute access standard for primary physicians, though it did have specialists within a 30-mile/60-minute radius. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that if an applicant chooses a specialist for their primary care, the MPN must provide at least three physicians of that specialty within a 15-mile/30-minute radius. Since the defendant's MPN failed to meet this standard for pain management specialists, the applicant was permitted to choose one outside the MPN. A dissenting opinion argued that the 30-mile/60-minute standard for specialists should apply, allowing the applicant to select a physician within that broader radius from the MPN.

MPNMedical Provider NetworkPrimary Treating PhysicianSpecialistAccess StandardsAdministrative Director's RulePain Management PhysicianGeographic RadiusLabor CodeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

57th Street Management Corp. v. Zurich Insurance

The plaintiff, 57th Street Management Corp., sought a judgment declaring that Zurich Insurance Company, the defendant, had a duty to defend and indemnify it in an underlying negligence action initiated by an injured employee, Isaac Wilner, and a subsequent third-party action by Bade Cab Corp. Wilner was injured in 1984, received workers' compensation benefits from a policy issued by Zurich, and later sued 57th Street Management Corp. and Bade Cab Corp. The action against 57th Street Management Corp. was dismissed due to Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Bade Cab Corp. then served a third-party summons on the plaintiff. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting Zurich's cross motion for summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide timely notice to Zurich of the personal injury action, vitiating coverage, and that notice of the workers' compensation claim did not serve as notice for subsequent actions.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary Judgment AppealTimely Notice RequirementWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityThird-Party LiabilityNew York Appellate LawEmployer's Liability InsuranceVitiation of Coverage
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1999

Wayburn v. Madison Land Ltd.

Plaintiffs Robert Wayburn and E.S. were victims of a violent crime (robbery, assault, and rape) in an office building. They, along with Doris McGarty, sued multiple defendants, including the building's managing agent, Rose Associates, and the security provider, Primary Security Services, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants. On appeal, the decision was modified: summary judgment was denied for Rose Associates, and the complaint against them was reinstated. Rose's cross-claims against Primary Security Services were converted to third-party claims. The dismissal of direct claims against Primary Security Services and Rosenthal & Herman, P. C. was affirmed.

NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealForeseeability of CrimeLandlord LiabilityManaging Agent NegligenceSecurity BreachPremises SecurityDuty of CareReinstatement of ClaimsThird-Party Claims
References
9
Case No. ADJ9145724
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

ARZAGA, JOSE vs. CROWN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case involves an applicant seeking to select a pain management specialist outside his employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant argued the MPN failed to provide a qualifying specialist within the required 15-mile/30-minute access standard for a primary treating physician. The Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the applicant's right to choose an out-of-network physician and reimbursement for investigative costs. The majority reasoned that the MPN must meet the closer access standard for a primary treating physician, even if that physician is a specialist. A dissenting opinion argued that a specialist, when chosen as a primary treating physician, should fall under the 30-mile/60-minute access standard for specialists.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNprimary treating physicianpain management specialistaccess standardAdministrative Director's Rule 9767.5investigative costsLabor Code section 5703Lescallett v. Wal-MartMartinez v. New French Bakery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lujan v. Cabana Management, Inc.

Plaintiff Lujan and other employees sued Cabana Management, Inc. and Glenn Frechter for unpaid wages under FLSA and NYLL. The court had conditionally certified FLSA claims, and motions for class certification (NYLL) and decertification (FLSA) were pending. This order addresses multiple motions to strike evidence, including declarations and exhibits, based on discovery violations (Rule 26) and evidentiary rules (hearsay, personal knowledge). The court grants in part and denies in part defendants' motions to strike, and grants in substantial part plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike due to various discovery derelictions by both parties, and provides detailed reasoning for each ruling.

Class ActionCollective ActionFLSANYLLRule 23Rule 26Rule 37Discovery SanctionsHearsayWork Product Doctrine
References
74
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00302 [135 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2016

Domaszowec v. Residential Management Group LLC

Plaintiff Tracy Domaszowec's decedent died from a fall while cleaning a window on the 13th floor of an apartment building. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Residential Management Group LLC and 40 Fifth Avenue Corporation (40 Fifth defendants), the building owner and manager. The court found the decedent was engaged in "commercial window washing," thereby making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 202 against Veronica Bulgari and Stephen Haimo due to lack of exclusive control, and common-law negligence claims against T&L Contracting of N.Y., Inc. and Greenpoint Woodworking Inc. due to the lack of an exception to the contractual obligation rule. Issues of fact precluded summary judgment on negligence claims against Panorama Windows, Ltd., and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable to certain defendants.

Window cleaner fatalityScaffold LawSummary judgment appealAppellate Division First DepartmentCommercial vs. routine window washingLabor Law applicabilityContractual tort liabilityRes ipsa loquitur in negligencePunitive damages dismissalExpert witness evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thoms v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Thoms)

Kashima Thoms, a Chapter 7 debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding seeking the discharge of her substantial student loan obligations totaling $90,948.58, citing "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) became the primary defendant, administering all of Thoms's student loans. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court applied the Second Circuit's stringent three-part Brunner test, which requires demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal living standard, persistence of this hardship, and good faith repayment efforts. The Court found that Thoms, earning $48,000 annually, had sufficient disposable income, and her financial prospects were likely to improve, particularly with potential changes in childcare expenses and family living arrangements. Crucially, Thoms had made only minimal payments years prior and failed to utilize available loan restructuring options, thereby failing to prove good faith. Consequently, the Court ruled that Thoms did not establish undue hardship, denying the discharge of her student loan debts.

Bankruptcy LawStudent Loan DischargeUndue Hardship DoctrineBrunner TestChapter 7 BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingFinancial DistressRepayment EffortsFederal Student LoansDebtor-Creditor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tuttle v. Housing Opportunities Management & Essential Services, Inc.

The plaintiff, a 30-year-old man diagnosed with retardation, suffered severe burns from an assault by a friend in his apartment. He resided in an intensive supportive apartment provided by Housing Opportunities Management and Essential Services, Inc. (H.O.M.E.S.), a non-profit organization offering housing for individuals with psychiatric or developmental conditions within a state-authorized community living program. While H.O.M.E.S. staff and other therapists had approved his move to this less restrictive setting, concerns arose regarding friends taking advantage of him, leading H.O.M.E.S. to initiate a discharge process for him to move to a more supervised environment, which was not completed before the incident. The court deliberated on whether H.O.M.E.S. owed a duty to protect the plaintiff from a third party's criminal acts. Citing Mental Hygiene Law and various precedents, the court concluded that H.O.M.E.S. had no such special duty, emphasizing that the community care system prioritizes individual liberties and the assault by the friend was not reasonably foreseeable. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Community HousingDevelopmental DisabilitiesPsychiatric ConditionsNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsMental Hygiene LawCommunity Care SystemResidential Programs
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Stamm v. PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning plaintiffs Thoburn, III (Toby) and Cannon, who, as young children, were present during a car accident in 1985 that left their mother with severe and permanent brain injuries. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against their father, Thoburn M. Stamm, Jr., and PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC, alleging physical and emotional injuries, specifically emotional distress and post-traumatic stress syndrome, under the 'zone of danger' theory. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged emotional injuries were not proximately caused by the direct observation of their mother's serious injury during the accident. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their zone of danger claims.

Zone of DangerNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalCar AccidentEmotional InjuryParental ConsortiumPsychiatric EvaluationEvidentiary StandardsProximate Causation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 7,334 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