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

Goldberg v. Touche Ross & Co.

In this consolidated class action, Touche Ross & Co., as assignee of claims from the Goldberg action, moved for summary judgment against Theodor H. Kaufman, Benjamin Lieberman, and Jack Shapiro. The litigation originated from allegedly fraudulent financial statements issued by Giant Stores Corp. for fiscal years 1971 and 1972, which Touche Ross had certified as Giant's auditor. Shapiro, an officer and director of Giant, was previously convicted of fraud related to these statements. The court addressed Shapiro's arguments against Touche Ross's motion, including claims of impermissible indemnity and factual disputes regarding causation and damages. The court emphasized a strong public policy against indemnity in securities fraud cases and denied Touche Ross's motion, suggesting that contribution from nonsettling defendants might be an alternative remedy.

Securities FraudClass ActionSummary Judgment MotionIndemnityContributionCorporate OfficersFinancial Statements FraudAuditor LiabilityBankruptcy ActSEC Investigation
References
20
Case No. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. ADJ976410 (SDO 0364068)
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

DIANNA BALDWIN vs. ROSS STORES, INC.

This case before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board involves Dianna Baldwin (Applicant) and Ross Stores, Inc. (Defendant). The Board has issued an order dismissing the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal is based on the Board's review of the record and incorporates the reasons provided in the administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation.

Petition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoss StoresInc.Dianna BaldwinCase No. ADJ976410SDO 0364068
References
0
Case No. ADJ9028742 ADJ9008407
Regular
May 11, 2018

JOSE ARELLANO vs. ROSS STORES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration for applicant Jose Arellano and denied it for defendant Ross Stores, Inc. The WCAB reversed the prior decision, finding that Arellano's December 6, 2012 injury claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. This reversal was based on the defendant's failure to prove compliance with mandatory notice requirements, which tolls the statute of limitations. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, while Arellano's February 8, 2013 injury claim remains unaffected.

Statute of limitationsTollingNotice requirementsLabor Code sections 35503551New and further disabilityLabor Code section 5410Affirmative defensePrejudiceReconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ10892681, ADJ10892685
Regular
Sep 26, 2018

ISABEL VALDEZ vs. ROSS STORES, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a withdrawn Petition for Reconsideration filed by an unnamed petitioner in the matter of Isabel Valdez v. Ross Stores, Inc. and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition as a result of its withdrawal. No substantive legal issues were decided as the matter was resolved by the petitioner's action. The Board's order is dated September 26, 2018.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawnDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoss StoresArch Insurance CompanySedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ10892681ADJ10892685San Diego District Office
References
0
Case No. 10-CV-5255 (ERK)(LB)
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Valentine Avenue Discount Store, Co.

Plaintiff Julian Rosario filed a collective action lawsuit against multiple discount stores and Raymond Srour, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff sought conditional certification of the collective action, production of potential opt-in plaintiffs' information, and authorization to circulate a notice of pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, granted the plaintiff's motion. The decision was based on a 'modest factual showing' that employees across several stores were subject to a common policy of wage and hour violations, despite initial concerns about the scope of the class and the definition of similarly situated employees. The court outlined specific modifications for the notice of pendency, including defining the class as 'non-managerial employees who performed work related to the receipt, stocking, or sale of merchandise, or general maintenance/cleaning of the store,' and also addressed the content and dissemination of the notice, and the production of employee information.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum WageCollective ActionConditional CertificationEmployee RightsEmployer LiabilityRetail Industry
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Resnick v. Touche Ross & Co.

This action addresses claims made by purchasers of Weis Securities, Inc. stock against Touche Ross, Weis' auditor, following the firm's collapse in 1973. Plaintiffs allege Touche Ross certified materially false and misleading financial statements in 1972, leading to violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933, common law negligence, and aiding and abetting. The court examined the scienter standard for 10b-5 claims, concluding that recklessness suffices, and thus allowed the 10b-5 and aiding and abetting claims to proceed. However, claims under Sections 17(a) and 18(a) of the 1934 Act were dismissed, the former due to plaintiffs not being customers and the latter due to time limitations. The court also maintained pendent jurisdiction over the gross negligence claim, citing New York law that allows actions against accountants for recklessness even without strict privity.

Securities FraudAuditor LiabilityRecklessness StandardRule 10b-5Aiding and Abetting LiabilityCommon Law NegligencePendent JurisdictionSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933Financial Misstatements
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ifill v. Saha Food Stores

Plaintiff Humphrey Ifill, an electrician, sustained severe burn injuries on January 17, 1994, while replacing a circuit breaker in an energized electrical panel at a supermarket owned by defendants Saha Food Stores, Pioneer Supermarkets, and 5610 Fifth Realty Corporation. He alleged that the store manager and owner refused his requests to de-energize the circuit, thereby forcing him to work under unsafe conditions. Ifill filed an action against the defendants, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. During the proceedings, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding that there was a triable issue of fact concerning the defendants' control over the plaintiff's work methods.

Electrician InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSupervisory ControlEnergized EquipmentBurn InjuriesComparative Negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Planning Board

Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval in the Town of North Elba for a retail store. Respondent, the Planning Board, denied the application, citing adverse visual impact, effects on community character, and non-compliance with the Town Land Use Code after a SEQRA review and public hearing. Wal-Mart challenged this denial as arbitrary, capricious, and lacking substantial evidence, also alleging Open Meetings Law violations. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division retained jurisdiction, applying a rationality standard, and ultimately confirmed the Planning Board's determination, dismissing Wal-Mart's petition.

Conditional Use PermitSite Plan ApprovalState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewRationality StandardAesthetic ImpactCommunity CharacterTown Land Use CodeOpen Meetings Law
References
18
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06483
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Brewer v. Ross

Plaintiff William Brewer sought damages for personal injuries after a scaffold collapsed at the home of defendants Serina L. Ross and Milton E. Nielson, Jr. The Supreme Court dismissed Labor Law claims against the homeowners, citing the homeowner exemption, and a jury found Nielson negligent but not the proximate cause for common-law negligence. The Appellate Division reversed, finding a rational basis for a jury to deny the homeowner exemption under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) due to conflicting evidence on Nielson's control over the work. It further determined the jury's verdict on common-law negligence was inconsistent, as Nielson's alleged negligence in striking the scaffold would logically constitute proximate cause. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial on all relevant causes of action against the named defendants.

Personal InjuryScaffold CollapseHomeowner ExemptionCommon-Law NegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialCPLR 4401 MotionCPLR 4404(a) Motion
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 439 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