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

Kbr Inc. v. Chevedden

KBR sought summary judgment to exclude John Chevedden's shareholder proposal from its 2011 proxy materials due to alleged non-compliance with SEC Rule 14a-8(b) regarding proof of stock ownership. Chevedden, in turn, filed several motions challenging venue, personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, and the indispensable party status of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The court denied all of Chevedden's motions, asserting personal jurisdiction over him under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and finding that KBR had standing for a declaratory judgment action. The court also determined that venue was proper in Houston and that the SEC was not an indispensable party. A decision on KBR's summary judgment motion was deferred, pending additional briefing from both parties on recent SEC no-action letters by March 21, 2011.

Shareholder ProposalProxy MaterialsSEC Rule 14a-8Personal JurisdictionSubject-Matter JurisdictionVenueIndispensable PartyDeclaratory Judgment ActSummary JudgmentSecurities Exchange Act of 1934
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City Council v. Town Board

East-West Realty Corporation, owner of 37 acres in the Town of Colonie, sought to have its property, along with an additional 6 acres, annexed by the City of Watervliet to facilitate a senior citizen assisted-living development. The Town of Colonie denied the petition, citing non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and lack of overall public interest. The City of Watervliet, however, approved the petition and initiated a court proceeding to determine if the annexation was in the public interest, with East-West intervening as a petitioner. The Town of Colonie moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Watervliet failed to comply with SEQRA prior to approving the annexation. The court found that annexation constitutes an 'action' subject to SEQRA review, even for parcels less than 100 acres, and that such review must occur at the earliest opportunity. Concluding that no SEQRA compliance occurred before the joint hearing, the court granted the Town of Colonie's motion and dismissed the petition.

annexationSEQRAenvironmental reviewzoning restrictionspublic interestmunicipal lawType I actionunlisted actionCPLR 404General Municipal Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Briley

This case involves a 1974 consent decree limiting public access to arrest records of individuals not convicted of charges, entered into by John Doe (plaintiff class representative), Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the State of Tennessee. The plaintiff filed a motion to assure compliance, alleging the defendants violated the decree by disseminating arrest records, including posting "johns" on the internet. Defendants Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) and Metro, along with intervenors The Tennessean and NewsChannel 5, moved to dissolve the decree. The court found that the constitutional right underpinning the 1974 decree, related to reputation and due process, has eroded due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions like Paul v. Davis. Additionally, Tennessee statutory laws (T.C.A. § 10-7-503 and § 38-6-120) now mandate public access to arrest records. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for compliance, granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions to dissolve the 1974 consent decree, and dismissed the case, noting that the 1973 consent decree, which addresses employment-related record use, remains in effect.

Consent DecreeRule 60(b) MotionDue Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentRight of PrivacyArrest RecordsPublic Records ActConstitutional LawJudicial ReviewModification of Injunction
References
57
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03287
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Dejesus v. Downtown Re Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Brian Dejesus was injured when a steel tubing fell through a gap in a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, addressing multiple indemnification and breach of contract claims among the owner (Downtown Re Holdings LLC), general contractor (Noble Construction Group, LLC), and various subcontractors. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Noble's negligence and granted Downtown summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. due to its negligence in bridge erection. Claims against City Safety Compliance Corp. were dismissed as its role was merely advisory. The decision also involved contractual indemnification between Downtown/Noble and The Safety Group, Ltd., granting a breach of contract claim against TSG for failing to procure required insurance.

Construction AccidentSidewalk Bridge DefectIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance ProcurementBreach of Contract
References
12
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01325 [225 AD3d 723]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2024

Samperi v. City Safety Compliance Corp.

Plaintiff Salvatore Samperi was injured at a construction site when an outward swinging access gate hit him. He sued multiple defendants, including Northeast Interior Specialists, LLC, alleging Labor Law § 200 violations and common-law negligence. Northeast moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, ruling that Northeast failed to establish prima facie that it did not create the dangerous condition of the gate.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawCommon-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkDangerous ConditionSubcontractor LiabilityProximate Cause
References
14
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05172 [220 AD3d 1033]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Matter of Espinoza v. City Safety Compliance Corp.

Jaime Espinoza, a safety manager, sustained injuries while pulling a gate in a parking area adjacent to a construction site after his shift. He filed for workers' compensation, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the employer neither controlled the parking area nor was it part of the jobsite. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The Court found a sufficient nexus between the employment and the parking area, noting that Espinoza was instructed to park there and construction materials were stored by the general contractor in the same vicinity, thereby extending the employer's premises. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryParking Area InjuryPremises Extension DoctrineRemittalAppellate Division Third DepartmentConstruction SiteSafety ManagerArising Out of Employment
References
13
Case No. Docket Entries No. 140, 141
Regular Panel Decision

In re Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P. Sec. Litig.

This Memorandum and Opinion addresses the defendants' second motion to dismiss a securities-fraud amended complaint. The case involves a highly publicized oil spill on the California coast by Plains All American Pipeline, an oil and gas pipeline owner and operator. Plaintiffs, a putative class of stockholders, allege that Plains and its officers made misrepresentations about the spill's extent and the company's environmental compliance programs, causing a drop in stock price. The court previously dismissed claims without prejudice, allowing for amendment. Now, evaluating the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, the court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court finds that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege specific, actionable misrepresentations and, more critically, failed to establish a strong inference of scienter for the individual defendants for any remaining potentially actionable statements. Consequently, all claims are dismissed with prejudice, deeming further amendment futile.

Securities FraudOil SpillPipeline IntegrityEnvironmental ComplianceClass ActionMotions to DismissScienterRule 9(b)PSLRAStock Price
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chau v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission

This case involves Wing F. Chau and Harding Advisory LLC (plaintiffs) seeking to enjoin an administrative proceeding initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Plaintiffs argue that the SEC's choice of an administrative forum, instead of a federal district court, violates their due process and equal protection rights. The court, applying the Thunder Basin and Free Enterprise Fund factors, concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to interrupt the ongoing agency adjudication. The court found that SEC adjudication would not foreclose meaningful judicial review, the claims were not wholly collateral to the SEC proceeding, and the SEC was competent to consider the fairness of its proceedings and related constitutional claims in the first instance. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the SEC's motion to dismiss the action.

Securities RegulationAdministrative LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSubject Matter JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionMotion to DismissSEC EnforcementCollateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs)Investment Advisors Act
References
55
Case No. 2018-01-0040 ja bis
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2019

Newton, Cameron v. OM Hixson, LLC

Cameron Newton sustained a psychological injury diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder by Dr. John Robertson, who ordered psychotherapy. The employer, OM Hixson, LLC, failed to provide a panel of psychotherapists for over two months, contending Mr. Newton had not established that Dr. Robertson was unwilling to provide the therapy or that the order was limited to psychiatrists or psychologists. The Court found the employer's arguments without merit, noting a pattern of previous delays in providing benefits. The Court ordered OM Hixson, LLC to promptly provide Mr. Newton with a panel of psychotherapists and referred the case to the Bureau’s Compliance Unit for assessment of a penalty due to the employer's repeated failure to timely provide recommended medical treatment.

Psychological InjuryPost-traumatic Stress DisorderPsychotherapyEMDR TherapyMedical BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawExpedited HearingPenalty AssessmentEmployer DelayCompliance Unit Referral
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,173 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