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

Houston v. Teamsters Local 210

Pro se plaintiffs, including Houston, filed a lawsuit against an ERISA-regulated fund seeking severance pay. They argued they were entitled to benefits because their termination occurred 'within one year of' their employer ceasing operations, interpreting the phrase to include the period before cessation. The defendants contended this phrase referred only to the period after cessation and also argued that all plaintiffs, except Houston, failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the non-Houston plaintiffs failed to exhaust remedies. For Houston's claim, the court found the plan language unambiguously supported the defendants' prospective interpretation of the 'within one year of' clause. Alternatively, even if ambiguous, the plan granted the defendants discretionary authority, and their consistent interpretation was deemed rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

ERISA BenefitsSeverance Pay DisputePlan InterpretationSummary Plan Description (SPD)Administrative ExhaustionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDiscretionary AuthorityEmployer CessationPro Se LitigantsMotion for Summary Judgment
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp.

Plaintiff was injured at a construction site when, while working, he was struck in the back by an uninstalled door frame. He commenced an action against Wood-Pro, the company hired to install the door frames, and Summerville, the manufacturer of the door frame. The jury found no negligence on the part of Wood-Pro. The court also properly granted Summerville’s motion to dismiss the action as against it, as there was no evidence of negligence or violation of duty. Plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) against both defendants were also found unavailing, as neither had authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work, and they were not owners or general contractors.

Construction InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityLabor LawAppellate ReviewJury VerdictComparative FaultMotion to DismissStatutory DutyContractual Duty
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Springer v. Partners in Care

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought a lawsuit against Partners in Care under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging gender/sex discrimination following his termination. The defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's complaint was barred by the doctrine of laches due to an over ten-year delay in obtaining a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, and that the EEOC had exceeded its authority. The plaintiff contended he made intermittent inquiries about his case status during this period. The court denied the defendant's motions, reasoning that the plaintiff's delay was not unreasonable given his pro se status and his alleged attempts to follow up. Furthermore, the court found the defendant had not adequately demonstrated prejudice, citing the EEOC's record-keeping regulations and the unconscionable nature of penalizing a pro se litigant for administrative inefficiencies.

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationLachesSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissEEOCRight-to-Sue LetterPro Se Litigant
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goin v. BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD, LLC

Plaintiff Joanna Goin sued Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, Bass Pro, Inc., Three Johns Company, and Track-mar Corporation in Tennessee state court for retaliatory discharge after asserting workers' compensation rights. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that retaliatory discharge claims under Tennessee law are common law torts and thus removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). Plaintiff moved to remand, asserting that her claim requires the interpretation of Tennessee's workers' compensation statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-114, especially concerning whether an employer's policy of reprisal or retaliatory acts other than discharge constitute a "device" under the statute, thus falling under the removal prohibition. The court, citing Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., determined that Goin's novel legal theories necessitate interpreting the state's workers' compensation law. Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot, ruling that the action "arises under" the statute and should remain in state court.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensationMotion to remandFederal jurisdictionDiversity jurisdictionCommon law tortTennessee lawStatutory interpretationPublic policy exception28 U.S.C. § 1445(c)
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2005

Hakala v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.

This case addresses a defendant's motion to dismiss a plaintiff's petition regarding an arbitration award, specifically concerning the ninety-day limitations period under N.Y. CPLR § 7511(a). The plaintiff's filing was one day late, received on March 24, 2004, for an award received on December 24, 2003. The court examined arguments including excusable neglect, pro se status, and equitable estoppel, deeming them inapplicable for extending the statute of limitations. However, the court acknowledged the plaintiff's claim of erroneous instructions from the Court’s Pro Se Office as potentially substantial, citing the precedent of *Soto v. Freda*. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the application to confirm part of the award was denied as timely, while the motion to dismiss the application to vacate or modify part of the award was denied without prejudice, pending an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual dispute regarding the Pro Se Office's advice.

Arbitration AwardStatute of LimitationsTimeliness DisputeCPLREquitable EstoppelPro Se LitigationExcusable NeglectCourt ErrorFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Young v. Central Square Central School District

Plaintiff sued Central Square Central School District under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discrimination due to her multiple sclerosis diagnosis and the District's failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The District moved for summary judgment, arguing collateral estoppel from a prior administrative hearing that found Plaintiff unfit to teach, and also sought to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel. The Court denied the summary judgment motion, ruling that collateral estoppel did not bar the litigation of reasonable accommodation issues. However, the motion to disqualify Plaintiff's law firm, O'Hara & O'Connell, was granted because an associate had previously worked on the District's defense in related matters, creating an appearance of impropriety. Consequently, Plaintiff must secure new legal representation or proceed pro se within ninety days.

Americans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActReasonable AccommodationMultiple SclerosisEmployment DiscriminationCollateral EstoppelAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestSummary JudgmentTeacher Disability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. New York State

The plaintiff, pro se, filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging numerous constitutional rights violations by state and municipal defendants, including false arrests, excessive force, and retaliation, spanning 12 years. The claims included violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 14th Amendment, and New York State common law. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to disqualify the Attorney General. The court denied plaintiff's cross-motion. It granted defendants' motion to dismiss the RICO claim, claims asserted on behalf of plaintiff's son, and the conspiracy claim, finding the latter barred by the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine. However, the court denied dismissal requests related to the statute of limitations (applying the continuing violation doctrine to § 1983 claims), Eleventh Amendment immunity (allowing individual capacity claims), and the First Amendment retaliation claim, finding the allegations sufficient to proceed.

Civil RightsDue ProcessFalse ArrestExcessive ForceRetaliationFirst Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEleventh Amendment
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schutzer v. Suss-Kolyer

Appellants Harry Suss-Kolyer and Rita Suss-Kolyer appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, denying their motion to vacate a default judgment in favor of an unnamed plaintiff. The default judgment stemmed from a $20,000 mortgage note they guaranteed for their nephew, George J. Scheidel, Jr., and Schi Realty Corp. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted the motion to vacate the default judgment, and ordered the plaintiff to serve a complaint. The court found the appellants' default was not willful and criticized the plaintiff, an attorney appearing pro se, for improperly using an affirmation for judgment entry under CPLR 2106, remanding the case for a trial on the merits.

Loan DefaultMortgage GuaranteeDefault JudgmentVacate JudgmentPro Se RepresentationAppellate ReviewCPLR 2106Kings County Supreme CourtImproper ProcedureAccommodation Party
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC

Mee Jin-Jo (now deceased and represented by her daughter Billian Jo) filed a pro se lawsuit against JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC, alleging improper retention of property after her eviction. Following a jury verdict of "no cause of action," Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court addressed Plaintiff's grievances concerning evidentiary rulings, consistency between in limine rulings and trial decisions, the presence of a corporate representative, proper service of discovery documents, opportunity to review deposition transcripts, judicial conduct, and the admissibility of new evidence and lay opinion testimony. The Court denied the motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a new trial was warranted.

Motion for New TrialRule 59 FRCPEvidentiary RulingsJury VerdictHarmless ErrorCorporate RepresentativeDeposition TranscriptLay Opinion TestimonyFederal Rules of EvidenceJudicial Discretion
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 12,288 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