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

Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.

The plaintiff, Thomas Davis, a former "ramp serviceman" for United Air Lines, Inc., sued his employer following his dismissal due to a physical disability (epilepsy). He alleged wrongful dismissal in violation of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asserting a claim as a third-party beneficiary of a federal contract and a violation of a collective bargaining agreement which he claimed incorporated the Act's affirmative action provisions. Chief Judge Weinstein granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court ruled that there is no private right of action under Section 503, as established in a prior appeal concerning the same plaintiff (Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.), and that allowing a third-party beneficiary claim would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim under the collective bargaining agreement was dismissed as he failed to exhaust the mandatory Railway Labor Act procedures, and his "futility" argument was rejected.

Rehabilitation ActWrongful DismissalThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementDisability DiscriminationRailway Labor ActMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionFederal Contract LawAffirmative Action
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Blasio v. United States

This action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act by Jean and Clifton DeBlasio against the United States for personal injuries sustained by Jean at the Gateway Sports Center. The plaintiffs alleged negligence due to protruding cement nodules on a sidewalk. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting it could not be sued for the acts or omissions of its independent contractors. The court found that Shields and Dean Concessions, Inc., which operated the Sports Center, was an independent contractor and that the government lacked day-to-day supervisory control. Consequently, the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply, and the motion for summary judgment was granted, finding the United States immune from suit.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryNegligenceGovernment LiabilityConcessionaireNational Park ServiceControl Test
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrenko v. United States

Plaintiff John Petrenko filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the United States, alleging civil rights violations including negligent beating, false arrest, and false imprisonment stemming from a 1988 incident with United States Park Police officers. Petrenko sought $10 million in damages. The Government moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court ruled that the United States is immune from § 1983 suits and that prior state court findings of probable cause precluded the false arrest and imprisonment claims. Petrenko's negligent beating claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, and his state claim for vehicle impoundment costs was also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as adequate state remedies exist.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Civil Rights ViolationFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentNegligent BeatingSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityCollateral EstoppelProbable CauseFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
18
Case No. Proof of Claim No. 149
Regular Panel Decision

In re DeWitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.

The Debtor, DeWitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., moved to expunge the priority portion of a claim filed by United Staffing Registry, Inc. The Claimant sought priority status for social security, Medicare, and unemployment payments made for temporary employees it provided, citing 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper analyzed the application of § 507(a)(5) in light of case precedents, including Howard Delivery Service, Inc. The Court determined that the priority under § 507(a)(5) is intended to protect contributions for a debtor's direct employees, and the temporary employees were not employees of DeWitt. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was sustained, disallowing the priority and reclassifying the entire claim as a general unsecured claim, while also denying the Debtor's request for legal fees.

Bankruptcy LawPriority ClaimsEmployee Benefit Plans11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)Temporary EmployeesUnsecured ClaimsIndemnificationLegal FeesClaim ExpungementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00118 [190 AD3d 489]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Henry v. Split Rock Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC

Plaintiff Ian Henry, an HVAC technician, was injured on January 24, 2014, at Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, when a circuit breaker allegedly exploded. He was inspecting a newly installed rooftop air conditioning unit and was escorted to an electrical room by a Split Rock employee. Split Rock moved for summary judgment, arguing Henry's failure to turn off the power caused the incident, but Henry testified the power was already off. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the motion, finding unresolved factual issues regarding the accident's cause and whether the risks were readily observable. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that material issues of fact remained for trial.

Summary JudgmentHVAC TechnicianWorkplace AccidentCircuit Breaker ExplosionMaterial Issues of FactObservable RisksNegligenceThird-Party DefendantAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Spinal Ass'n v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action brought an action against the Board of Elections in the City of New York (BOE) under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging pervasive access barriers at poll sites. The Court previously denied a preliminary injunction. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment. The Court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of pervasive and recurring accessibility barriers and deemed the BOE's accommodation methods insufficient. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendants' cross-motion. The case is now referred to a Magistrate Judge for the determination of the appropriate remedy.

AccessibilityVoting RightsAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActPoll SitesSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationBoard of ElectionsMeaningful AccessReasonable Accommodation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strehle v. United States

Seaman Richard Frances Meyer died on a United States Navy vessel due to entrapment in ropes from a malfunctioning winch. His administratrix, Loretta Strehle, sued the United States under the Public Vessels Act, Jones Act, and Death on the High Seas Act, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness. The court found the United States liable, citing the uncorrected defects in the winches and their "deadman" safety feature. The court rejected the claim of Meyer's contributory negligence. Plaintiff was awarded $28,600 for loss of income to Meyer’s dependents (his four sisters) and $50,000 for Meyer's pain and suffering prior to death, totaling $78,600.

Admiralty LawJones ActDeath on the High Seas ActPublic Vessels ActMaritime NegligenceVessel UnseaworthinessWrongful DeathPain and SufferingLoss of SupportComparative Negligence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Luca v. United Nations Organization

A former United Nations security officer filed a lawsuit against the United Nations and eight of its officials, alleging breach of contract, forgery, negligence, civil rights violations, and denial of medical benefits. The plaintiff claimed the U.N. failed to reimburse him for 1988 taxes, issued a fraudulent final pay statement with a forged signature, and unlawfully denied him continued health insurance coverage after his resignation. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting immunity under international and federal law. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with prejudice, finding that the United Nations and its officials were immune from the action for acts performed in their official capacities.

ImmunityInternational OrganizationsUnited NationsDiplomatic ImmunitySovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractEmployment LawTax ReimbursementMedical BenefitsOfficial Capacity
References
10
Case No. ADJ4459609 (RDG 0084433) ADJ165897 (RDG 0084432) ADJ350688 (VNO 0548588)
Regular
Aug 13, 2009

BILLY EPPS vs. TRIANGLE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant denied vocational rehabilitation benefits by the WCJ. The applicant argued the Rehabilitation Unit's (RU) delay constituted nonfeasance and deliberate indifference, entitling him to benefits despite the repeal of the relevant statute. The Board denied reconsideration, finding no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of RU misconduct. The Board also highlighted the applicant's own significant delays in pursuing his claim, which prejudiced his ability to secure benefits before the law changed.

Vocational Rehabilitation BenefitsRehabilitation Unit (RU)NonfeasanceDeliberate IndifferenceWanton DisregardDue ProcessReckless ActionsQualified Injured WorkerLabor Code Section 139.5Petition for Reconsideration
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,955 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