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. 2015-2418 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Remedial Med. Care, P.C. v. Park Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, Park Insurance Co., sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint filed by Remedial Medical Care, P.C., as assignee of Thomas Brown. The Civil Court initially denied the motion but found that the defendant had established timely mailing of denials. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendant for a bill of services rendered on August 23, 2012, as it was paid according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. However, for the remaining bills, the defendant failed to prove timely mailing of IME scheduling letters, thus failing to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled or that the assignor failed to appear. Therefore, the denial of summary judgment for the remaining claims was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Timely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermCivil CourtDenial of ClaimFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re McLean Industries, Inc.

This case concerns U.S. Lines, Inc. (now Janus Industries), along with Mclean Industries, Inc. and First Colony Farms, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), and the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (collectively, the "Movants"). They filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1986 and had a plan of reorganization confirmed in 1989, which relied on the preservation of net operating losses (NOLs). After the IRS announced proposed regulations in 1990 that could challenge the use of NOLs if a plan's principal purpose was tax evasion, the Movants sought a court order declaring that tax evasion was not the principal purpose of their plan. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) opposed, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the applicability of the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court denied the Movants' motion, holding that under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(d), only a governmental unit can initiate a tax avoidance motion, and the issue of tax liability based on proposed regulations was not a concrete controversy.

BankruptcyChapter 11Tax AvoidanceNet Operating Losses (NOLs)IRS RegulationsPlan ConfirmationPost-Confirmation MotionDeclaratory Judgment ActSubject Matter JurisdictionGovernmental Unit
References
4
Case No. ADJ4415679 (OAK 0259031) ADJ2701101 (WCK0050594)
Regular
May 10, 2010

Stanley Sanders vs. REMEDY INTELLIGENT STAFFING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, OREGON STEEL MILLS, INC. dba NAPA PIPE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a judge's decision, ruling that Napa Pipe, a self-insured special employer, is liable for applicant Stanley Sanders' workers' compensation benefits. Despite an agreement between the general employer (Remedy Temp) and Napa Pipe attempting to limit liability to Remedy Temp's insurer (Reliance), Napa Pipe's joint and several liability as a special employer cannot be contractually eliminated. Because Napa Pipe's self-insurance was not excluded for special employees and constitutes "other insurance" under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), CIGA is relieved of its obligation to provide benefits following Reliance's insolvency. Therefore, Napa Pipe must now provide all workers' compensation benefits and administer the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStanley SandersRemedy Intelligent StaffingCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Insurance CompanyOregon Steel MillsNapa PipeADJ4415679ADJ2701101Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wright v. Herb Wright Stucco, Inc.

This dissenting opinion argues against a majority decision to dismiss a complaint, asserting that Labor Law § 220 should not diminish workers' existing common-law contractual rights regarding prevailing wages on public projects. The dissent highlights the statute's historical purpose as an ameliorative measure, intended to simplify enforcement for private employees and provide the sole remedy for certain public employees, rather than to remove established remedies. It contends that the statute should be construed liberally to protect workers. The dissent emphasizes the feasibility of establishing prevailing wage rates at trial, referencing statutory definitions and judicial precedents, concluding that the law should not inadvertently deprive workers of prior legal recourse.

Workers' RightsPrevailing WageLabor LawStatutory InterpretationCommon Law RemediesPublic ProjectsAdministrative EnforcementAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionNew York Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 1985

Cipriano v. FYM Associates

Pasquale Cipriano, an employee of Licari & Co. Builders, Inc., sustained injuries while working on the roof of premises owned by FYM Associates, a limited partnership. After receiving Workers' Compensation benefits, Cipriano and others filed a negligence action against FYM Associates, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 240 and 241. FYM Associates moved for summary judgment, asserting that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 provided an exclusive remedy, a motion initially denied by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The appellate court reversed this decision, determining that Licari Builders, the plaintiff's employer, was a general partner of FYM Associates. Consequently, the partnership and its partners were deemed a single entity for Workers' Compensation purposes, making the benefits the exclusive remedy and warranting the dismissal of the complaint.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentLabor LawPartnership LiabilityEmployer LiabilityAlter EgoAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halikipoulos v. Dillion

The Petitioners filed habeas corpus petitions seeking to bar further prosecution on Double Jeopardy grounds after completing a "Stoplift" program as a bail condition for shoplifting charges. They argued the program, including an $85 fee, constituted punishment prior to conviction. The District Court examined whether jeopardy attached or if it was a Due Process violation. Citing prior Supreme Court cases, the court found that jeopardy does not attach during pre-trial proceedings or bail conditions without the risk of a guilty verdict. Furthermore, the court determined the "Stoplift" program served a rational, non-punitive, remedial purpose and was not an excessive burden, comparing it to other permissible bail conditions. Therefore, the court concluded that the program did not constitute punishment in violation of either the Double Jeopardy or Due Process clauses, and even if it did, dismissal of charges would not be the proper remedy. The petitions were consequently denied.

Double JeopardyDue ProcessHabeas CorpusPre-trial PunishmentBail ConditionsShopliftingRemedial ProgramsFifth AmendmentCriminal ProcedureConstitutional Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2009

Gaynor v. Cassone Leasing, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, citing Workers' Compensation Law §§11 and 29(6), which establish an exclusive remedy for employees electing compensation benefits, thus barring them from suing their employers in a personal injury action. This protection extends to 'special employers.' The defendant successfully demonstrated through affidavits and deposition testimony that the plaintiff was its special employee, exhibiting all essential components of an employment relationship, including control over hiring, firing, discipline, hours, salary, and daily assignments. Since the plaintiff's general employer's sole purpose was to service the defendant, the defendant was deemed to have assumed control over the plaintiff's work. Consequently, the defendant was shielded from the lawsuit by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision.

Workers’ Compensation LawSpecial EmployerExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployment RelationshipAppellate DecisionSuffolk CountyDamagesAffirmed Order
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. New York City Board of Education

This Memorandum & Order addresses a dispute arising from a settlement agreement between the United States and the New York City Board of Education. The agreement aimed to remedy employment discrimination, specifically testing and recruiting discrimination, against minority provisional hires by granting permanent appointments and retroactive seniority. The Court, having previously found sufficient evidence only for testing discrimination, focuses on two key issues: the intended categorization of beneficiaries and the "actual victim" status of certain individuals. The Court concludes that the parties intended to categorize beneficiaries, and relief for layoff protection purposes is limited to actual victims of testing discrimination. Specifically, Ricardo Cordero and Vernon Marshall are deemed actual victims, with Marshall's seniority date adjusted, while six other individuals failed to prove actual victim status for layoff protection. Consequently, certain black and Hispanic custodial employees who had not taken and failed a challenged exam are not entitled to retroactive seniority for any purpose under the Agreement.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIFourteenth AmendmentRetroactive SeniorityAffirmative ActionTesting DiscriminationRecruiting DiscriminationActual VictimsSettlement AgreementProvisional Hires
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,361 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