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
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Ultreo, Inc.

The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) sued Ultreo, Inc. for false advertising under the Lanham Act and the New York Consumer Protection Act, specifically challenging Ultreo's claims about its toothbrush technology. P&G sought the disclosure of five scientific studies conducted by Ultreo, arguing they were discoverable business documents. Ultreo resisted, claiming the studies were protected by attorney work product privilege. The court rejected Ultreo's argument, finding that the studies were a core part of Ultreo’s business plan to substantiate its advertising claims and would have been prepared regardless of anticipated litigation. Therefore, the court ordered Ultreo to produce the studies to P&G.

False advertisingLanham ActNew York Consumer Protection ActDiscovery disputeAttorney work productPrivilegeScientific studiesClinical researchLitigation anticipationBusiness plan
References
7
Case No. ADJ6550105; ADJ6777358 ADJ6777361; ADJ6976802
Regular
Jun 24, 2014

ESTHER GARCIA vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP

This case involves an applicant with multiple workers' compensation claims. At a mandatory settlement conference, the judge ordered a sleep study, which the defendant challenged. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, finding the order for the sleep study premature. The Board rescinded the sleep study order, stating that such an order cannot be made before the case is tried or submitted, and before it's established that specific medical opinions are deficient.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceSleep StudyDiscovery OrderMedical Record AugmentationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorThreshold MatterDevelop the RecordAdmission of Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ9870999
Regular
Feb 13, 2017

ROBIN SMITH vs. CITY OF SUNNYVALE

This case involves a firefighter claiming breast cancer arose from employment exposure to carcinogens, triggering a statutory presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.1. The employer sought to rebut this presumption by arguing a medical examiner found no studies linking applicant's specific exposures to breast cancer. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the employer failed to prove there is *no reasonable link* between workplace carcinogen exposure and the applicant's cancer, a higher bar than simply the absence of direct scientific studies. The Board reiterated that an employer must affirmatively demonstrate a lack of reasonable connection, not just highlight a lack of studies supporting causation.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumption of industrial causationpublic safety officerfirefightercarcinogen exposurebreast cancerdisputable presumptioncontroverted evidencereasonable linkburden of proof
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Dow Chemical Co.

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery from defendants Dow and PPG regarding documents related to ongoing research studies on the harmful effects of vinyl chloride, which her deceased husband William Smith was allegedly exposed to. Defendants countered with a motion for a protective order, citing a qualified researcher's/scholar's privilege and arguing that the incomplete studies were irrelevant and inadmissible under Daubert standards. The court granted plaintiff's motion to compel, finding that defendants failed to provide sufficient information to establish a privilege claim and that arguments concerning the admissibility of incomplete studies were premature. The court also denied defendants' motion for a protective order, instructing defendants to produce the requested documents.

DiscoveryResearcher's PrivilegeScholar's PrivilegeMotion to CompelProtective OrderVinyl Chloride ExposureScientific StudiesExpert TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re V. R. P-L.

The petitioners sought certification as qualified adoptive parents for M.EL. under Domestic Relations Law § 115-d, aiming to satisfy USCIS home study requirements for an I-600 petition. The USCIS had previously rejected their independent social worker's home study and suggested either an authorized agency home study or a DRL § 115-d certification. The court, however, determined that DRL § 115-d was inappropriate for foreign-born children sought for adoption as orphans, and that such cases fall under DRL § 115-a. Despite the USCIS's guidance and the petitioners' time constraints, the court was compelled by state law to dismiss the petition due to its reliance on the incorrect statutory section.

AdoptionPrivate Placement AdoptionForeign AdoptionOrphanUSCISI-600 PetitionHome StudyDomestic Relations LawNew York Family CourtStatutory Construction
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03888 [195 AD3d 1270]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2021

Matter of Spence v. State Univ. of N.Y.

This case involves an appeal concerning a salary increase for nurses at Stony Brook University Hospital, initiated by the State University of New York. Petitioners, including Wayne Spence and the New York State Public Employees Federation, argued that the salary adjustments violated Education Law and Civil Service Law due to an inadequate study, and Executive Law and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act due to disparate impact on older nurses. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the study sufficient and the age discrimination claims procedurally deficient. The Appellate Division affirmed this dismissal, concluding that the study was representative, the nonuniform pay differential was permissible under Education Law, and the age discrimination claims failed because petitioners did not file with the EEOC and the pay adjustments were based on a legitimate non-age factor.

Wage ratesPay differentialsNurse salariesAge discriminationCPLR article 78State University of New YorkPublic Employees FederationStony Brook University HospitalEducation Law § 355-aCivil Service Law § 130
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 511 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