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
Jan 16, 2001

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.

Proctor & Gamble Company (P&G), a worldwide distributor of consumer products, sued numerous parties including Quality King Distributors, Inc., Omnisource International, Inc., and Neal Rose, alleging they were involved in mixing, bottling, selling, and distributing counterfeit Head & Shoulders shampoo, in violation of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act. P&G moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for trademark infringement. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, arguing P&G had unclean hands, abandoned its trademark rights, and that Neal Rose lacked individual liability. The court granted P&G's motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants used a counterfeit of P&G's trademark in commerce, which created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court denied the defendants' cross-motions, concluding that the unclean hands defense was inapplicable, P&G had not abandoned its trademark, and there was sufficient evidence for Rose's personal liability.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActCounterfeit GoodsSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DefenseTrademark AbandonmentCorporate Officer LiabilityHead & ShouldersConsumer ConfusionInterstate Commerce
References
40
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06839 [165 AD3d 1360]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Matter of Mitchell v. Eaton's Trucking Serv., Inc.

Claimant James Mitchell, a tractor truck driver, filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries to his right hand, wrist, arm, and shoulder, identifying both Eaton's Trucking Service, Inc. (Eaton) and Quality Carrier's, Inc. (Quality) as his employers. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Eaton was Mitchell's general employer and Quality was his special employer, making both 50% liable for benefits. Quality appealed this decision, challenging the special employment finding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Mitchell was a special employee of Quality, considering factors such as control over work, method of payment, furnishing of equipment, and the nature of the work arrangement between Eaton and Quality.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTractor Truck DriverOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
7
Case No. ADJ9638509; ADJ9638510
Regular
Nov 17, 2020

CESAR MARROQUIN vs. OAKWOOD CEMETERY, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Appeals Board rescinded the original Findings and Order, finding that Advanced Pain Control's declaration under Labor Code section 4903.8(d) was valid, but Quality Interpreting's declaration was invalid due to the declarant's lack of personal knowledge and insufficient supporting evidence. Consequently, Quality Interpreting's lien was dismissed for failing to comply with statutory requirements and for being untimely filed. The case was returned for further proceedings regarding Advanced Pain Control's lien.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)Joint Findings and Orderprima facie evidencecompetent to testifylien claimantdeposition transcripthearsay evidencepersonal knowledgeevidentiary ruleslien conference
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2001

Loglisci v. Niko Associates

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant producers' cross motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was their special employee, thus precluding a separate personal injury action. However, the court found an issue of fact regarding the extent of supervisory control exercised by the defendants over the plaintiff. Deposition testimony suggested that the defendants' control was not comprehensive or exclusive, and that the plaintiff's general employer maintained some control over the work. This raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was indeed a special employee. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this decision, finding the defendants' other arguments unavailing.

personal injuryworkers' compensationsummary judgmentspecial employeesupervisory controlemployer liabilityissue of factAppellate DivisionNew York lawlabor law
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. 2006 NY Slip Op 50326(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2006

Bienaime v. Reyer

Jean Patrick Bienaime suffered personal injuries while cleaning a press machine owned by his employer, Quality Carton, Inc. The machine's safety interlock was non-functional, and employees routinely cleaned it while operating. Quality had hired Reyer, doing business as All Electric, to perform various electrical repairs on the machine, during which Reyer rerouted power and performed other work without wiring diagrams. Plaintiffs alleged Reyer was negligent by not checking safety devices and making the machine less safe. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment by both Reyer and Quality, finding questions of fact regarding Reyer's potential for creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' cross-appeal.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentMachine SafetyElectrical NegligenceSummary JudgmentTort LiabilityContractual DutyDangerous ConditionAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. LeChase

Plaintiff, an employee of Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while disconnecting electric service at an apartment complex. The complex was owned by Chase Woods Manor, L.P., managed by Welker Property Management, Inc., and electrical work was performed by Douglas Bibby, d/b/a Bibby Electric. Plaintiff brought an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against all defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of supervisory control and that they were not 'owners' of the specific equipment being worked on, nor did they hire or pay RG&E. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The court dismissed the Labor Law § 200 claim due to lack of defendants' supervisory control and granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, denying plaintiff's cross-motion, finding that strict application of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) was unjust given the public utility context and defendants' lack of control over RG&E's work and equipment.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityPublic Utility EmployeeAbsolute LiabilityStatutory AgentSafe Place to Work
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2006

Ford v. HRH Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained personal injuries after falling from wooden cross braces while unloading curtain wall panels from a flatbed truck. The incident occurred due to the alleged absence of safety devices and slippery conditions on the truck platform. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's motion on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. On appeal, the order was modified to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against several defendant property owners, who demonstrated no control over the work site or notice of the hazardous conditions. However, claims against HRH Construction Corp., the owner's construction manager, were not dismissed due to unresolved factual issues regarding its supervision and control.

Construction accidentpersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200common-law negligencesummary judgmentliabilitysafety devicefall from heightslippery conditions
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 4,240 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