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

Pfeiffer v. Rand (In Re Rand)

Katherine Pfeiffer, an unemployed office worker acting pro se, objected to the discharge of Jonathan Rand and the dischargeability of her claim against him. Rand moved to dismiss her complaint, citing improper service and failure to state a claim. The court found Pfeiffer's January 3rd letter constituted a timely complaint, but her subsequent service of only a summons was improper. However, acknowledging Pfeiffer's pro se status and efforts to correct the error, the court denied Rand's motion to dismiss for improper service, instead quashing the service and directing Pfeiffer to re-serve once an amended complaint is filed. The court granted Rand's motion to dismiss Pfeiffer's objection to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 due to a lack of pleaded facts, without leave to replead. Conversely, the court conditionally denied the motion to dismiss Pfeiffer's claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523, granting her leave to replead with particularity, and also denied Rand's request for sanctions.

BankruptcyDischargeabilityMotion to DismissAdversary ProceedingPro Se LitigantRule 7004Rule 4(j)Rule 727Rule 523Fraudulent Intent
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rand v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

Michael D. Rand (plaintiff) sued The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (defendant) over disability and overhead expense insurance policies. The case, initially filed in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, was removed by the defendant to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, citing federal question jurisdiction under ERISA. Plaintiff moved to remand and for costs, while defendant moved to dismiss arguing ERISA preemption. The court analyzed whether Rand's disability policies constituted an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan, concluding they were for the sole benefit of Rand and his partner, not employees, and thus not governed by ERISA. Consequently, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, and denied the plaintiff's request for costs and attorney fees.

ERISADisability InsuranceRemoval JurisdictionRemandFederal QuestionWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleState Law PreemptionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureCosts and Attorney Fees
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Accardi v. Control Data Corp.

This case, a Memorandum and Order by District Judge Whitman Knapp, addresses an ERISA action where plaintiffs sought severance pay from their former employer, Control Data Corporation (CDC), following the sale of their division to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP). Plaintiffs, initially employees of an IBM subsidiary, had their benefits, including severance pay, protected by a "Benefits Agreement" adopted by CDC upon acquisition. CDC denied severance, arguing the IBM plan didn't cover divestitures and citing its own policy. The court, applying an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, found CDC's interpretation of the IBM benefits plan, which it had adopted, to be clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the IBM plan indeed provided for severance in cases of dismissals due to division sales and did not require unemployment or prohibit "double recovery." Consequently, the court denied CDC's motion for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiffs.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationsCorporate DivestitureAcquisitionBenefit Plan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardControl Data Corporation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1980

Claim of Vaccaro v. Sperry Rand Corp.

A 54-year-old research department head died after jogging during his lunch hour on his employer's premises. The employer permitted this activity and provided an athletic facility, the Sperry Rand Athletic Club, to its employees, supporting its functions through commissions and allowing its name to be used. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the decedent's death was causally related to and arose out of strenuous exertion during the course of his employment, a finding supported by medical testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the intimate relationship between the employer and the athletic club and the employer's ability to terminate such activities at will.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer PremisesLunch Hour ActivityAthletic FacilityCausationDeath BenefitAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1998

Correia v. Professional Data Management, Inc.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by Creative Finishes, Ltd., fell 16 feet from an elevated platform while working at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan, sustaining multiple fractures. He initiated an action against the building owner (Professional Data Management, Inc.), construction manager (Gotham Construction Corp.), and building manager (Williamson, Picket & Gross, Inc.), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Gotham subsequently impleaded Creative Finishes, Ltd. for contractual and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied Gotham's cross-motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no evidence to support a recalcitrant worker defense and noting that factual questions regarding Gotham's own negligence, distinct from its statutory liability, precluded summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim.

Labor LawScaffoldingAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseGeneral Obligations LawConstruction AccidentPainter Fall
References
9
Case No. ADJ8649778
Regular
Mar 18, 2019

Rand Sessor vs. AKH COMPANY, INC., THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc.

This case concerns a lien claim by Med-Legal Photocopy for services rendered to applicant Rand Sessor. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted Med-Legal's petition for reconsideration, reversing the WCJ's finding that the lien was untimely. The WCAB held that the lien was timely filed within the 18-month statutory period under Labor Code section 4903.5, as the date of service was established by an invoice and accompanying records sent on September 11, 2013. Consequently, Med-Legal's lien was found to be valid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.5Statute of limitationsDate of serviceIndustrial injuryCompromise and ReleaseSubpoena duces tecumInvoice
References
8
Case No. ADJ1177048
En Banc
Feb 03, 2009

WANDA OGILVIE vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Appeals Board holds that the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) portion of the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities is rebuttable and establishes a specific, multi-step method for doing so, based on the employee's individualized proportional earnings loss and a numeric formula consistent with Labor Code § 4660 and RAND Institute data.

DFEC2005 ScheduleRebuttableDiminished Future Earning CapacityLabor Code section 4660RAND dataProportional Earnings LossWhole Person ImpairmentEmployment Development DepartmentVocational Rehabilitation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donegan v. Nadell

Petitioner Donegan, employed in Nassau courts since 1967, was promoted to Court Assistant II and began performing data entry duties following the installation of a computer system in 1973. However, the job specifications for her title did not include computer skills. When a new statewide classification plan was implemented, her position was converted to Principal Office Assistant, a title also lacking data entry duties. Donegan challenged this classification, arguing her actual duties warranted a classification as Data Entry Supervisor. Despite her grievance being partially granted and a provisional appointment to the data entry supervisor role, she was ineligible for permanent appointment due to not taking the required competitive examination. The court affirmed the administrative decision, emphasizing that civil service classifications must be based on "in-title" duties defined by job specifications, not "out-of-title" work performed, and that data entry skills required distinct competitive testing.

Civil Service LawJob ClassificationOut-of-Title WorkData Entry SupervisorPrincipal Office AssistantCourt AssistantPromotional ExaminationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. 00 Civ. 4763
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Information Systems, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union Number 3

The plaintiffs, CWA-affiliated electrical contractors led by U.S. Information Systems, Inc., filed an antitrust lawsuit against IBEW Local Union Number 3 and affiliated electrical contractors. Plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy to exclude them from the telecommunications installation market, causing higher prices and lost profits, in violation of the Sherman and Donnelly Acts. The defendants moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' economic expert, Dr. Frederick C. Dunbar, under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, arguing his methods and data were unreliable. Magistrate Judge Francis found that while Dr. Dunbar's qualifications and methodology were largely sound, his analysis concerning liability and causation relied on a biased data sample. Consequently, the court partially granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Dr. Dunbar's testimony based on the skewed data sample for liability and causation is inadmissible. However, his testimony not dependent on this biased data, including his damages calculations, remains admissible, and plaintiffs were instructed to submit a revised expert report if they intend to offer such testimony.

AntitrustMonopoly LeveragingExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardReliability of EvidenceStatistical AnalysisData BiasMarket PowerTelecommunications IndustryElectrical Contracting
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 120 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