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
Mar 01, 2011

Tptcc Ny, Inc. v. Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs TPTCC NY, Inc., The Proton Institute of New York, LLC, and N.Y. Medscan LLC sued defendants Norton Travis, Radiation Therapy Services Inc. (RTSI), Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Cicero Consulting Associates VCC, Inc., New York Proton Management LLC (NYPC), Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., and 21st Century Oncology, LLC. Plaintiffs alleged federal antitrust, federal copyright, and various New York state law claims, contending a conspiracy to exclude them from the New York City market for Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) services and misappropriation of their business plan. The court dismissed the antitrust claims, applying the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and finding a lack of antitrust injury. Copyright claims were dismissed because the business plan lacked creativity for copyright protection and was jointly authored. State law claims, including breach of joint venture, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, were also dismissed due to various legal deficiencies, such as the absence of a joint venture, the public disclosure of alleged trade secrets, and the lack of a fiduciary relationship. The court reaffirmed its order granting defendants' motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, directing entry of final judgment for the defendants.

Antitrust LawCopyright LawTrade SecretsUnfair CompetitionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractJoint VentureNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSherman ActNew York Common Law
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lew v. Radiation Dynamics, Inc.

Samuel Lew sued his former employer, Radiation Dynamics, Inc. (RDI), alleging national origin discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Lew, a naturalized American citizen of French origin, claimed he was discriminated against due to his French accent and subsequently terminated after complaining about a discriminatory remark by his supervisor. RDI moved for summary judgment, asserting Lew failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the discrimination claim and that his termination stemmed from poor performance. The Court granted summary judgment for RDI on the national origin discrimination claim, finding Lew's allegations primarily focused on retaliation rather than direct discrimination. However, the Court denied RDI's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim and its motion to limit damages, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the pretextual nature of Lew's termination, including disputed examination scores and performance evaluations. The case will proceed to trial on the retaliation claim.

Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964National Origin DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingEEOC ExhaustionTemporal Proximity
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lahrick L.

Lahrick L., a five-month-old infant, suffered extensive first and second-degree burns while in the custody of the respondents. The petitioner presented prima facie evidence of child neglect based on these injuries. The respondents claimed the child rolled off a bed and came into contact with a hot radiator. However, Dr. Moohr, a pediatrics expert specializing in child abuse burn injuries, refuted this explanation, stating the burn patterns were inconsistent with radiator burns and more consistent with hot liquid splatter. Additionally, a caseworker testified that the radiator in question was cold and inoperable on two separate visits in January 1985. The dissenting judge, Eiber, J., found the respondents' explanation factually insufficient to rebut the petitioner's prima facie showing of neglect and argued that the record contained ample evidence to support a finding of child neglect, urging for a finding of guilt and remittal for a dispositional hearing.

child neglectburn injuriesprima facie evidenceexpert medical testimonydiscrediting parental explanationcircumstantial evidenceFamily Court Actdissenting opinioninfant injuriesburden of proof
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hock v. Builtland Partners

Louis Hock, a window cleaner, was injured while attempting to exit a seventh-floor window at 335 Madison Avenue, owned by Builtland Partners and managed by Cushman and Wakefield, Inc. He fell when a radiator cover he was using to step onto gave way. Plaintiffs, Louis and Janice Hock, filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court reviewed the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for gravity-related accidents if proper safety devices are not provided. The court determined that Hock's accident fell within the ambit of the statute, as he was not provided with a safe means to overcome the elevation differential to access his work platform. The collapse of the radiator cover highlighted the lack of a required safety device. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants.

Scaffold LawAbsolute LiabilityElevation Related HazardGravity Related InjuryWindow Cleaning AccidentRadiator Cover CollapseProximate CauseNondelegable DutySummary JudgmentWorker Safety
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First District Dental Society v. Sencer

The petitioners, dental societies in New York City, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge a directive from the New York City Department of Health. The directive, dated August 14, 1981, mandated that all radiation installation licensees, including dental offices, make complete copies of Article 175 of the New York City Health Code available for staff examination. Petitioners argued this requirement was arbitrary and capricious due to its impracticality, financial burden, and the existence of an alternative provision allowing a descriptive notice. Respondents defended the directive as a rational measure to protect public health and ensure worker instruction regarding radiation safety, aligning with state and federal regulations. The court, applying the standard for administrative review, found a rational basis for the Department's interpretation and upheld the directive, denying the petitioners' request for nullification, though a 60-day stay on enforcement was granted.

Radiation SafetyHealth CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewDental PracticesRegulatory CompliancePublic HealthArticle 78 ProceedingsAgency InterpretationDirective Challenge
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1984

Coakley v. General Motors Corp. Harrison Radiator Division

The claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1968, resulting in a schedule award, and retired in 1975. In 1980, she suffered a consequential injury to her right leg, held to be the responsibility of the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. A schedule award was established in 1983 based on the consequential injury date. The claimant sought a penalty against the Special Fund, arguing the compensation rate should be based on the consequential injury date, not the original injury date. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the rate for a consequential injury is determined by the rate applicable at the time of the origin of the injury and modified the award accordingly. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that a consequential injury emanates solely from the original injury, and the pertinent rate of compensation should be measured by the original period.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjurySchedule AwardSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensation RateOriginal Injury DateRetirementAppellate ReviewJurisdictional CorrectionNew York Workers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. SRO 134400, SRO 139130
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

COBY RICHARDS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA AND G.B. BRAGG AND ASSOCIATES, CITY OF CLOVERDALE AND REMIF

The applicant, a police officer, claimed a cumulative trauma injury resulting in a brain tumor, asserting exposure to x-rays as a known carcinogen under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant did not establish an industrial injury. While acknowledging the applicant's exposure to x-rays, the Board found this exposure did not present a reasonable link to the brain tumor, as per the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion that only direct radiation to the brain is a known risk factor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryAstrocytomaBrain tumorCarcinogenLabor Code section 3212.1Presumption of injuryPeace officerCumulative traumaX-rays
References
7
Case No. ADJ17298965
Regular
Apr 28, 2025

SETH FRANKLIN vs. CITY OF REDLANDS, ADMINSURE

Applicant Seth Franklin, a police officer, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that denied his claim for industrial injury in the form of melanoma. The WCJ initially found applicant was not entitled to the cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, concluding that the WCJ erred. The Board determined that applicant, as a police officer, was exposed to solar radiation (a known carcinogen) and his melanoma developed or manifested during his employment, thus entitling him to the cancer presumption. The case has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if the presumption can be rebutted.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionpolice officermelanomaindustrial injurycarcinogensolar ultraviolet radiationlatency periodrebuttal of presumptioncumulative trauma
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1994

Fernandez v. Broadway Plaza Associates

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted summary judgment to a plaintiff worker against defendant landowners on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff was injured after being instructed to use an inverted pail on a radiator to perform work, despite potentially having adequate safety devices available. The court also granted the landowners' cross-motion for summary judgment against the third-party defendant contractor for indemnification, finding the landowners were only vicariously liable. The appellate court unanimously affirmed both rulings, stating there was no bona fide issue regarding the plaintiff's credibility and that landowners lacked direction or control over the work.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Worker InjuryVicarious LiabilityIndemnificationAppellate AffirmationConstruction Site SafetySupervisor InstructionCredibility IssueLandowner Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 1986

Yannon v. RCA Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury and wrongful death action brought by the plaintiff. The central issue was whether the Statute of Limitations for Samuel Yannon's claim, arising from radiation exposure allegedly causing his death, was tolled due to his insanity in December 1968 under CPLR 208. The appellate court reviewed conflicting medical and non-medical evidence presented during multiple hearings. Ultimately, it concluded that Samuel Yannon was indeed insane in December 1968, thus rendering the action timely. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied, and its affirmative defense based on the Statute of Limitations was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsTollingInsanityCPLR 208Summary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyPresenile Dementia
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 20 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