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. 2017 NY Slip Op 03584 [150 AD3d 1360]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Matter of Xie v. JP Morgan Chase

The claimant, Agnes Xie, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits. Xie, a bank executive for JP Morgan Chase, alleged she sustained neck, back, and shoulder injuries in November 2013 due to an ergonomically incorrect workstation. After her employment was terminated, she filed a claim, which was initially proposed for establishment for a back injury by the Board but later rescinded. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, citing lack of notice and insufficient evidence linking the injuries to employment, a decision upheld by the Board. On appeal, Xie argued employer preclusion and the Board's erroneous failure to establish her claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found these arguments unpreserved for review. The court also noted that while email records regarding workstation issues were before the Board, they did not alter the outcome, as the Board's decision rested on its assessment of witness credibility. Consequently, the Board's decision denying benefits was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation ClaimWorkstation InjuryErgonomic IssuesNeck, Back, Shoulder PainNotice RequirementPreservation of IssuesAppellate ReviewBoard Continuing JurisdictionCredibility of TestimonyClaim Denial
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04241
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2017

Alvarez v. Vingsan Ltd. Partnership

Franklin G.S. Alvarez was injured after falling from an unsecured ladder while installing sheetrock at premises owned by Vingsan Limited Partnership and leased by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. He, along with his wife, sued alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), common-law negligence, and loss of consortium. Initially, procedural errors led to denials of summary judgment motions. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied JP Morgan's cross-motion to dismiss that cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and JP Morgan failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Ladder AccidentConstruction Site InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilityProximate CauseWorker SafetyUnsecured LadderReargument
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2011

Petrisch v. JP Morgan Chase

Plaintiff Harold Petrisch brought an action against his former employer, JP Morgan Chase, and former managers, Phyllis Pressa and Rhonda Dauway, alleging national origin discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Plaintiff claimed he was subjected to excessive work demands, belittling, and discriminatory remarks, leading to his demotion and termination. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Petrisch's adverse employment actions were due to poor job performance and lack of commitment to training. The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants on all claims, finding insufficient evidence of pretext for discrimination or retaliation and that the alleged conduct did not constitute a hostile work environment. Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel, Stephen Jackson, was sanctioned for repeated failures to comply with court orders and local rules, ordered to pay Defendants' attorneys' fees, and to attend continuing legal education courses.

National Origin DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentSanctionsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 16Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
72
Case No. ADJ7433112
Regular
Mar 09, 2016

BYRON IRVING vs. JP MORGAN CHASE, administered by LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, JP Morgan Chase, against a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board has granted reconsideration based on an initial review, deeming it necessary for a thorough understanding of the factual and legal issues. Further proceedings are anticipated to facilitate a just decision. All future correspondence regarding the petition must be filed directly with the Appeals Board, not district offices or e-filed, until a decision after reconsideration is issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting ReconsiderationBYRON IRVINGJP MORGAN CHASELIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCEADJ7433112Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Birch v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.

Mario Birch, a former branch manager for JPMorgan Chase & Co., sued Chase alleging he was terminated based on race and national origin discrimination (42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, New York Human Rights Law) and in retaliation for supporting a disabled employee (ADA, New York Human Rights Law). He also claimed defamation for internal reports portraying him negatively. Chase moved for summary judgment. The court found Birch failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation, as he provided no direct evidence and failed to show similarly situated comparators were treated more leniently. His defamation claim was dismissed due to qualified immunity and lack of evidence of malice. All other potential claims for negligence, malicious prosecution, fraud, and breach of contract were also dismissed. The court granted Chase's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Birch's causes of action.

DiscriminationRetaliationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationDefamationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawHostile Work EnvironmentComparative Evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santiago v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries after slipping and falling on a wet tile floor in defendant's ATM vestibule. It had snowed the previous night, leaving icy and slushy conditions outside. Plaintiff, wearing rubber boots, wiped his feet but fell on the tiled floor inside. Defendant's inclement weather procedures were discretionary, with no additional mats or warning signs present on the day of the accident. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendant, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether an unremedied recurring dangerous condition caused the injury. The dissenting opinion argued that general awareness of wetness from inclement weather does not constitute constructive notice and that property owners have no duty to continuously mop or cover floors entirely.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalInclement Weather ConditionWet Floor HazardConstructive Notice DoctrineRecurring Dangerous ConditionBank NegligenceDuty to Maintain Safe Premises
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Panarella v. JP Hogan Coring & Sawing Corp.

A mechanic, instructed to report early, found the work gates locked. After unsuccessful attempts to locate the person with keys and contacting his supervisor, he attempted to climb a 12-foot fence, resulting in a fractured wrist. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found the injury compensable, ruling it arose out of and in the course of employment. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the act was personal or forbidden. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the injury occurred on the employer's premises and the presumption of compensability was not rebutted, as the claimant's actions were motivated by job duties and not explicitly forbidden.

Injury at WorkPremises LiabilityEmployer InstructionHazardous AccessWorkplace SafetyCompensabilityAppellate AffirmationPresumption RebuttalPersonal Act DefenseForbidden Act Defense
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Overby v. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK & JP MORGAN CHASE

Plaintiff Darryl Overby sued Chase Manhattan Bank and J.P. Morgan Chase for negligence, racial discrimination, mental duress, and wrongful cancellation of a life insurance policy, seeking ten million dollars. Overby, an African American, alleged racial discrimination based on the bank's failure to suggest investment options and unauthorized transactions. He also claimed negligence for not being offered investment opportunities and mental duress linked to the alleged discrimination. The court granted Chase's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent. It also dismissed banking claims as time-barred due to Overby's failure to notify the bank within contractual and statutory timeframes, and found no evidence of his life insurance policy ever being canceled.

Summary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationNegligenceMental DuressElectronic Funds Transfer ActBanking ClaimsPro Se LitigantContractual ObligationTimelinessLack of Evidence
References
13
Case No. ADJ673354 (ANA 0365640)
Regular
Oct 22, 2013

HECTOR PASILLAS vs. JP GERGEN CONSTRUCTION, MIDCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) imposed sanctions of $1,500 on a lien claimant and its representatives for filing an untimely and unjustified Petition for Reconsideration. The Petition contained material misrepresentations, lacked merit, and was improperly verified. The WCAB also awarded the defendant $1,650 in attorney's fees and costs. The lien claimant's untimely and insufficient response did not provide good cause to avoid sanctions. Jurisdiction was returned to the trial level after the sanctions were ordered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingSanctionsLegal Service BureauBack Pain Chiropractic CenterDr. HewkoMisrepresentationWithout MeritDefective Verification
References
0
Case No. ADJ7430667
Regular
May 28, 2013

BIN GUO vs. JP ORIGINAL CORPORATION, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded dismissals of several lien claims. The dismissals were based on the failure to pay a lien activation fee prior to a 2013 lien trial. However, the Board found this error due to a recent interpretation of Labor Code section 4903.06. The Board noted that the Declaration of Readiness was filed and the lien conference occurred before January 1, 2013, making the fee payment requirement inapplicable to the lien trial. The matter was returned for further proceedings, with the Board strongly urging consideration of sanctions against the lien claimants' representative for abandoning the trial.

Lien activation feePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDeclaration of ReadinessLien ConferenceLien TrialExcusable NeglectSanctionsLabor Code section 4903.06
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 16 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