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. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hickey-McAllister v. British Airways

Plaintiff, an employee of British Airways, challenged the revocation of her identification hologram and access to Customs Service security areas, suing British Airways, Allan Smith, Robert Rubin, the Customs Service, and Frank Anton. She alleged First Amendment retaliation by Anton, conspiracy under Section 1985(3) against multiple defendants, and New York State Human Rights Law claims for gender discrimination. The court dismissed the Bivens claim against Anton due to qualified immunity, the Section 1985(3) claims for insufficient particularity and lack of state action, and the NYSHRL claims by declining supplemental jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim against the Customs Service for violating its own regulations regarding notice and hearing was not dismissed, based on the Accardi doctrine.

First Amendment RightsFifth Amendment RightsQualified ImmunityBivens ClaimSection 1985(3) ClaimConspiracyPublic Concern SpeechRetaliationCustoms Service RegulationsAccardi Doctrine
References
30
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04942 [197 AD3d 1382]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Matter of Valdez v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

The claimant, a flight attendant, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2019 after experiencing skin, respiratory, and other physical problems believed to be linked to her new work uniform. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim for contact dermatitis, reactive airway disease, and lymphadenopathy. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, modifying it to establish the claim for an occupational disease with a date of disablement of May 1, 2019, under its continuing jurisdiction. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed, arguing a lack of causal link, especially since the chemical claimant was allergic to was not found in the uniform. However, the Board credited the claimant's testimony and her occupational physician's opinion that, based on the timing of symptoms, chemical sensitivity, and similar reactions among coworkers, there was a causal link. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationContact DermatitisReactive Airway DiseaseLymphadenopathyFlight AttendantWork UniformCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baez v. Jetblue Airways

Plaintiff Rosalinda Baez sued JetBlue Airways and Tiffany Malabet under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging false arrest, deprivation of a fair trial, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from an incident at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Baez claims that Malabet, a JetBlue gate agent, falsely accused her of making a bomb threat after a dispute over a missed flight, leading to Baez's interrogation and arrest by law enforcement. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found Baez's Section 1983 claims insufficient as defendants were not state actors. However, state law claims for defamation, false arrest, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Malabet were denied dismissal without prejudice, pending discovery on relation back. State law claims for negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision against JetBlue, and defamation against JetBlue, were also sustained. JetBlue's motion for sanctions against Baez was denied.

False ArrestDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligence ClaimsAirline Deregulation ActFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11Relation Back DoctrineState Action DoctrineAirport Security Dispute
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Jet Blue Airways Corp.

Glenn Edwards initiated a putative class action against Jet Blue Airways Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law, article 19, § 650 et seq., concerning overtime compensation. Edwards claimed that Jet Blue failed to pay him at 1.5 times his regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 that were exchanged with coworkers. Jet Blue sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) § 213 (b) (3) for air carriers, which it argued was incorporated into New York's 12 NYCRR 142-2.2. The court acknowledged the applicability of the FLSA exemption to Edwards due to Jet Blue's status as an air carrier. However, the court ruled that 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 still mandates overtime pay at 1.5 times the basic minimum hourly rate for exempt employees, which in this context means their regular pay rate plus one half times the New York State minimum wage. Finding that Edwards' complaint sufficiently alleged inadequate overtime compensation under New York law based on this calculation, the court denied Jet Blue's motion to dismiss.

Class actionOvertime payLabor LawFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Minimum wageAir carrier exemptionWage and hour disputeMotion to dismissNew York employment law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dennis v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The plaintiff, a former employee, filed an employment discrimination claim against Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Pan Am), Betty Kwong, and Su-zann Hull, alleging race and color discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She later attempted to amend her complaint to include an age discrimination claim under the ADEA and various state tort claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the ADEA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the state tort claims as preempted, and sought Rule 11 sanctions. The Court dismissed the age discrimination claim, ruling that it was not reasonably related to the original EEOC complaint based on race and color. Furthermore, the Court granted Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff's attorney for asserting the state tort claims, determining they were preempted by the Railway Labor Act and filed without sufficient pre-filing inquiry.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Subject Matter JurisdictionRule 11 SanctionsPreemptionRailway Labor Act (RLA)EEOC ComplaintRace Discrimination
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elaine W. v. Joint Diseases North General Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including Elaine W., sued Joint Diseases North General Hospital for unlawful sexual discrimination due to its policy of excluding pregnant women from its drug detoxification program. The hospital defended its blanket exclusion on medical grounds, citing a lack of specialized equipment, obstetricians, and licensing for obstetrical care. After conflicting rulings in lower courts, with the Appellate Division siding with the hospital, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court ruled that the hospital must prove its blanket exclusion is medically warranted at trial, rejecting the idea that a mere medical explanation, when disputed, validates a discriminatory policy. The case emphasizes that distinctions based on pregnancy constitute sexual discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law, requiring individual assessment unless a complete medical impossibility of safe treatment is demonstrated.

Sexual DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationDrug Detoxification ProgramHospital PolicyMedical JustificationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentBurden of Proof
References
11
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Independent Union of Flight Attendants (IUFA) filed an action against Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Pan Am) under the Railway Labor Act, seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce an April 1, 1985 agreement or, alternatively, to maintain the status quo. A key dispute arose over 'Item 7' of the agreement, regarding pending lawsuits and grievances, with the union claiming its exclusion and Pan Am insisting on its inclusion. The National Mediation Board (NMB) is currently reviewing this interpretive dispute. The court denied the preliminary injunction, reasoning that Pan Am was legally entitled to engage in self-help after exhausting statutory procedures, and that the union failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The balance of hardships was found to favor Pan Am, and the action was stayed pending the NMB's definitive ruling.

Railway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementSelf-HelpStatus QuoNational Mediation BoardIrreparable HarmBalance of HardshipsLabor DisputeUnion Rights
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 642 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