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

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. 03 Cr. 0229(NRB)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Tomero

Louis Moscatiello, one of fifteen defendants associated with the Genovese organized crime family, moved to dismiss his indictment for conspiracy to commit extortion and attempted extortion on double jeopardy grounds. Moscatiello argued that his prior guilty plea in 2004, which granted him immunity for Genovese-related activities between 1978 and 2004, encompassed the current charges. The court, presided over by District Judge Kaplan, applied the Russotti factors to determine if the alleged extortion of "Victim-1" (November 2003 to January 2004) was part of the same pattern of racketeering activity as the prior charges (control over Locals 14, 15, and 530 of various unions). The court found that the current charges involved different co-conspirators and a distinct nature and scope of activity. Consequently, the court denied Moscatiello's motion, concluding that the indictment did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause or his 2004 plea agreement.

Double JeopardyRICOHobbs ActExtortionConspiracyOrganized CrimeGenovese Crime FamilyPlea AgreementImmunityRacketeering Activity
References
16
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. Appeal No. 43055-56
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. Orozco

This case involves a psychiatric patient's action for damages against her psychiatrist, Dr. Andres Orozco, and others, stemming from a sexual relationship. The appeal consolidates challenges to two Supreme Court orders regarding motions to amend the complaint and dismiss claims. The Court denied leave to appeal but granted reargument, vacating a prior decision and substituting a new one. Key rulings include the reinstatement of a derivative claim for loss of services by the plaintiff's husband and a cause of action for intentional infliction of mental distress. However, claims against certain defendants were dismissed as untimely, and a prima facie tort claim was found insufficiently pleaded, while the finding of professional misconduct against Dr. Orozco was deemed merely evidence and not preclusive.

Psychiatric MalpracticeSexual MisconductStatute of LimitationsContinuous Treatment DoctrineIntentional Infliction of Mental DistressPrima Facie TortDerivative ClaimProfessional MisconductRespondeat SuperiorSummary Judgment
References
7
Case No. ADJ1035201
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

VICTOR DURAN vs. DONUT INN, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board is considering rescinding an order that dismissed Metro Med Shockwave's lien claim for failure to pay a $\$100$ lien activation fee. The WCJ dismissed the lien because the fee was not paid before the lien conference, citing prior precedent. However, the lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a DWC Newsline article referencing a court order. The Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, allowing further proceedings on the lien claim.

Labor Code section 4903.06Lien activation feeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMetro Med ShockwaveFigueroa v. B.C Doering Co.Angelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionDWC NewslineReconsiderationRescind order
References
2
Case No. 14-01-01143-CR and 14-01-01144-CR (Trial Court Cause Nos. 862,982 and 827,178)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2003

Edwards, Michael Jerome v. State

Appellant Michael Jerome Edwards was convicted of improper sexual activity with a person in custody and sexual assault. He was sentenced to two years for the first offense and ten years for sexual assault. The offenses occurred during a transport from Corpus Christi to Houston, where Edwards, a transportation agent, sexually assaulted the complainant. On appeal, Edwards challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding venue in Harris County and his employee status with the Harris County Jail, as well as the use of force in the sexual assault. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for all points and overruling the appellant's points of error.

Sexual AssaultImproper Sexual ActivityPerson in CustodyVenue DisputeEmployee StatusAgency LawPhysical ForceThreatened ForceJury ArgumentAppellate Review
References
32
Case No. ADJ169636 (ANA 0384077)
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

SIGRID GOSSERAND vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, KAISER WORKERS COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded an order dismissing a lien claim for failure to pay an activation fee, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The dismissed lien claimant, Rehab Solutions, argued their lien should not be dismissed because a lien filing fee was paid in 2005 under a former Labor Code section. The Board found evidence suggesting this prior fee payment and noted that a lien activation fee was not required at that time. The trial judge will now determine if Rehab Solutions paid the prior filing fee on behalf of the official lien claimant, North American Distributors.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimActivation FeeFiling FeeLabor Code section 4903.06Labor Code section 4903.05Petition for ReconsiderationWCJRehab SolutionsNorth American Distributors
References
1
Case No. 01-A-01-9807-CV-00347
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1999

Mitchell L. Darnall v. A+ Homecare, Inc. and James D. Smith

The plaintiff, Mitchell L. Darnall, appealed a summary judgment granted to the defendants, A+ Homecare, Inc. and James D. Smith, in a retaliatory discharge complaint under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304. Darnall claimed he was terminated for questioning suspicious accounting practices, while the employer asserted he was discharged for sexual harassment. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that under TCA § 50-1-304, the employee must prove an "exclusive causal relationship" between their refusal to participate in or remain silent about illegal activities and their termination. The court found substantial evidence suggesting Darnall's sexually explicit comments to a co-worker were a reason for his discharge, thus precluding an "exclusive causal relationship" with his "whistleblower" activities. The court also clarified that James D. Smith, as president and sole stockholder, was not an "employer" under the statute and thus not liable.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionAt-Will EmploymentSummary JudgmentSexual HarassmentCausal RelationshipEmployer LiabilityTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationPublic Protection Act
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 10,760 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