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
Mar 04, 1996

Javid v. Scott

Plaintiffs Eleanor Javid (as administratrix of Tige Javid's estate) and Kamal and Eleanor Javid (Tige's parents) filed a § 1983 action against Officer Edward Scott and the Village of Monroe, alleging excessive deadly force by Scott and inadequate screening/training policies by the Village. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Scott's actions were shielded by qualified immunity and the Village had no valid § 1983 claim against it. The court denied summary judgment regarding claims against Scott, citing genuine issues of material fact concerning the objective reasonableness of his use of deadly force. Initially deferring consideration of claims against the Village for discovery, the court later dismissed these claims with prejudice after plaintiffs announced their discontinuation. The decision allows the claims against Scott to proceed to trial, while absolving the Village of liability in this specific action.

Excessive forcePolice misconductQualified immunitySummary judgmentFourth AmendmentSection 1983Deadly forceMunicipal liabilityRespondeat superiorConstitutional rights
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1995

Scott v. Dime Sav. Bank of New York, FSB

The Scotts (Evelyn A. Scott and Leon Scott) sued The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB (Dime) for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. A jury found in favor of the Scotts on the breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, awarding $36,000, and assigning 54% fault to the Scotts for negligence. The Dime moved for judgment as a matter of law to dismiss these claims and for summary judgment on its counterclaim for mortgage foreclosure. The court denied the Dime's motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, upholding the jury's verdict due to evidence of a fiduciary relationship beyond a simple debtor-creditor, arising from the Dime's promotion of investments through its affiliate, Invest. The court granted the Dime's motion for foreclosure on the Scotts' mortgage, conditional on Mrs. Scott receiving a life tenancy. The court reasoned that the $36,000 damages pertained to investment losses, not the loan's validity, and the Scotts were in default. The awarded damages were set off against the amounts owed on the counterclaim.

Fiduciary Duty BreachNegligence ClaimsMortgage ForeclosureStock Market InvestmentsGlass-Steagall Act ImplicationsBank Affiliate LiabilityJury Verdict ReviewJudgment as Matter of LawEquitable DefensesPro Se Representation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians & Employers' Pension Fund v. Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund, brought suit against Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc. seeking an audit of payroll records from 1992-1994 to verify pension fund contributions. Steven Scott moved for summary judgment, asserting that fifteen prior settlement agreements with William Moriarity, a Pension Fund Trustee and Local 802 President, fully settled all monetary claims. The court found that Steven Scott reasonably relied on Moriarity's apparent authority, and the Pension Fund's actions, including cashing checks and failing to repudiate the agreements, established equitable estoppel and ratification. Consequently, the court granted Steven Scott's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Pension Fund was bound by the agreements and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

ERISALMRAPension FundEquitable EstoppelApparent AuthorityRatificationSettlement AgreementsSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsUnion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of Scott v. R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc.

Paul W. Scott, a part-time body repairman, died from an injury sustained while working on a car for R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found an employer-employee relationship, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, concluding Scott was an independent contractor. R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc. and its carrier appealed the Board's determination. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that Scott operated as an independent contractor due to factors like lack of supervision, working on his own schedule, providing his own tools, and receiving a fixed payment upon completion. The court highlighted that no single factor is conclusive in determining an employment relationship.

employment relationshipindependent contractorworkers' compensationaccidental deathscope of employmentcontrol testmethod of paymentfurnishing equipmentright to dischargeappellate review
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04293 [128 AD3d 926]
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2015

Pacheco v. Smith

The injured plaintiff, Braulio Pacheco, sustained injuries after falling from an extension ladder while installing a roof at the defendant's single-family home. The plaintiffs, Pacheco and his wife, commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200, claiming the ladder was situated on an unsecured plastic tarp placed by the defendant. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, who argued he did not supervise the work or create/have notice of a dangerous condition. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, finding that the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as his own submitted evidence raised triable issues of fact regarding the creation or notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLadder FallDangerous ConditionSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactPrima Facie Showing
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06139 [243 AD3d 417]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Pacheco v. Catholic Guardian Servs.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action alleging nonpayment of wages under Labor Law § 191. The plaintiff, Ingrid Pacheco, failed to state a valid claim under Labor Law § 191 as it pertains to frequency of pay, not unpaid wages, and she did not make any allegations regarding the frequency of pay. Furthermore, Pacheco did not sufficiently allege that she is a clerical worker entitled to § 191 protections, rather than a professional worker excluded from them. Consequently, her related claim under Labor Law § 198, which provides remedies for substantive violations of Labor Law article 6, was also dismissed.

Nonpayment of WagesLabor Law § 191 ClaimFrequency of PayClerical Worker StatusProfessional Worker ExemptionLabor Law § 198 RemediesAmended Complaint DismissalAppellate Division First DepartmentSufficiency of PleadingWage and Hour Disputes
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05216
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Pacheco v. Judlau Contr., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a Supreme Court order denying summary judgment to defendants Judlau Contracting, Inc. and J-Track, LLC. Plaintiff Jose Pacheco, an excavating laborer, sustained injuries while shoveling concrete debris in a subway tunnel, alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 violations. The court found that the defendants established, prima facie, that Pacheco's injuries stemmed from ordinary and obvious hazards inherent to his work of removing debris. Consequently, the defendants' duty to provide a safe workplace did not extend to these particular circumstances, leading to the granting of summary judgment to the defendants.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentSafe Place to WorkSubway TunnelDebris RemovalAppellate ReviewHazard
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2017

United States v. Scott

Mr. Scott, a 46-year-old African American male from Queens, New York, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin. He was involved in a drug trafficking organization in Queens. His addiction to heroin stemmed from prescription painkillers for a knee injury. On March 2, 2017, he was sentenced to time-served (approximately 20 months), three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. The court considered the nature of the offense, the defendant's characteristics, and the advisory sentencing guidelines, emphasizing parsimony in incarceration due to the defendant's acceptance of responsibility, stable family, and job prospects.

Conspiracy to DistributeHeroin TraffickingSentencing GuidelinesDrug AddictionPrescription Opioid MisuseSupervised ReleaseCriminal History Category VIAcceptance of ResponsibilityCareer OffenderFederal Sentencing
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiffs Marie Scott and Lori Fahs, employees of American Airlines, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their employer from prohibiting them from wearing Transport Workers Union (TWU) pins and from disciplining them for doing so. The defendant argued that the pins caused disruption to efficiency and customer relations, unlike pins worn by employees of certified unions. However, the court found no rational basis for the employer to forbid agents seeking union recognition from wearing union pins, especially since other unionized employees were permitted to wear them. The court concluded that the employer's actions constituted unlawful interference with the employees' right to organize under the Railway Labor Act and the Labor Management Relations Act, as it interfered with the designation of representatives and employee self-organization. The motion for a preliminary injunction was therefore granted.

Union insigniaPreliminary injunctionLabor lawRailway Labor ActLabor Management Relations ActEmployee rightsUnion organizingWorkplace disciplineEmployer interferenceCollective bargaining
References
7
Case No. CV-25-0385
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Scott Brady

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding Scott T. Brady's claim for psychiatric injuries. Brady died before an independent medical examination or hearing could be held. The Board ruled the claim abated due to his death, citing the employer's inability to adequately develop the record, cross-examine the claimant, or conduct a medical examination. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's determination. The court emphasized that the employer's due process rights would be infringed if the claim proceeded without proper investigation of the controverted conditions after the claimant's death.

Workers' CompensationAbatement of ClaimPsychiatric InjuriesIndependent Medical ExaminationDue ProcessCross-examinationEstateDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewThird Judicial Department
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 205 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