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. 99 Civ. 1652
Regular Panel Decision

Hussein v. the Waldorf-Astoria

Mamdouh Hussein, a pro se plaintiff, sued Hilton Hotels Corporation d/b/a The Waldorf-Astoria for religious discrimination under Title VII after he was refused work for wearing a beard. The hotel's policy prohibited facial hair, and Hussein claimed his beard was religiously mandated. The Waldorf sought summary judgment, contending Hussein failed to establish a prima facie case and that accommodating him would pose an undue hardship. The court found Hussein did not prove a bona fide religious belief, provided inadequate notice, and was not disciplined due to religious animus. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Religious DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentBona Fide Religious BeliefReasonable AccommodationUndue HardshipGrooming PolicyFacial HairPro Se PlaintiffEmployment Law
References
35
Case No. 2021-06-0602
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2023

Hussein, Abdullah v. Taylor Farms TN, Inc., d/b/a Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc.

Abdullah Hussein, an employee, sought additional workers' compensation benefits for knee and shoulder injuries, alleging they resulted from a fall caused by pain medication for an accepted back injury. The employer, Taylor Farms TN, Inc., disputed the work-relatedness of the fall. Judge Kenneth M. Switzer denied the benefits, concluding that Mr. Hussein failed to prove a causal connection between the fall and his employment, relying significantly on Dr. Elalayli's medical opinion which stated the medications were not the primary cause of the fall. Furthermore, the Court denied Mr. Hussein's second motion for continuance due to lack of extraordinary circumstances and his unavailability. Despite the denial for the knee and shoulder, Mr. Hussein remains entitled to ongoing treatment for his original low back injury with Dr. Elalayli.

Workers' Compensation LawExpedited HearingDenial of BenefitsCausation AnalysisMedical Opinion EvidenceBack InjuryKnee Injury ClaimShoulder Injury ClaimContinuance RequestBurden of Proof
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abecassis v. Wyatt

This suit was brought by American plaintiffs injured in terrorist attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2002. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, companies and individuals in the oil and gas business, illegally used the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program to purchase oil from Iraq. They claim that the defendants made illegal kickbacks to a secret bank account controlled by Saddam Hussein, who then used these funds to support Palestinian terrorist organizations and compensate families of suicide bombers, aiding in terrorist recruitment. The plaintiffs filed under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by the ATA’s four-year limitations period. The court denied the defendants' motion, finding a genuine factual dispute regarding when the plaintiffs should have discovered their claims, thus allowing for equitable tolling.

terrorismAntiterrorism ActOil-for-Food ProgramSaddam Husseinkickbacksfraudulent concealmentequitable tollingstatute of limitationsMiddle EastIsrael-Palestine conflict
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1989

People v. Hagi

The case involves Maik Dahir Hagi, convicted of attempted murder in the second degree for stabbing Osman Nur Hussein. The incident occurred after an argument outside a social club, where Hagi allegedly chased and stabbed Hussein multiple times. Hagi claimed self-defense, stating Hussein initiated the attack with a trash can and a knife, and the stabbing was accidental during a struggle. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the People's evidence strong and persuasive, and rejected Hagi's challenges regarding jury instructions on justification and prosecutorial misconduct. The jury found Hagi intended to kill Hussein.

Attempted MurderSecond Degree MurderStabbingSelf-DefenseJury InstructionsJustification DefenseProsecutorial MisconductWitness ImpeachmentCredibilityConsciousness of Guilt
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 1999

Hussein v. Pacific Handy Cutter, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order dismissing a manufacturer's third-party complaint against an employer in a products liability action. The decision hinged on the finding that the plaintiff worker's left eye injury, resulting in corrected visual acuity of 20/40, did not constitute "total blindness" and therefore failed to meet the "grave injury" threshold specified in Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court noted the plaintiff remained employed and licensed to operate a motor vehicle, concluding that the injury was not sufficiently severe to allow the third-party action to proceed.

Products LiabilityGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawVisual ImpairmentSummary Judgment
References
0
Showing 1-5 of 5 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