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
Apr 01, 2011

Riley v. HSBC USA, INC.

Plaintiff Dawn Riley alleged employment discrimination based on race against HSBC USA, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Riley's termination—poor job performance. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment in part to dismiss HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant and denying it as to HSBC Bank USA, National Association, finding material issues of fact regarding pretextual discrimination. Chief Judge William M. Skretny accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the objections, and partially granted/denied the motion for summary judgment, terminating HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant. The case will proceed against HSBC Bank USA, National Association.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPretextDisparate TreatmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawReduction in ForcePerformance Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Pavlov v. Debt Resolvers USA, Inc.

Claimant Dmitri Pavlov sued Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. after the defendant failed to return funds deposited for credit card debt resolution, alleging the defendant's services were ineffective and its fees excessive. The court determined that Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. engaged in "budget planning" as defined by New York law but was not licensed or properly incorporated as a not-for-profit entity for such activities. Consequently, the agreement between Pavlov and Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. was declared illegal and unenforceable. The court ruled in favor of Pavlov, ordering a refund of the deposited funds totaling $1,693.60. Additionally, the defendant was found to have engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349, leading to an extra $50 award for the claimant, bringing the total judgment to $1,743.60 plus interest.

Small ClaimsDebt ResolutionBudget PlanningUnlicensed ActivityConsumer ProtectionDeceptive Business PracticesContract EnforceabilityNew York LawCredit RepairDebt Settlement
References
2
Case No. ADJ746026 (SJO 0221595) ADJ1315805 (SJO 0221596) ADJ2490198 (SJO 0221597) ADJ1525795 (SJO 0234303)
Regular
Feb 03, 2010

GILBERT GASKA vs. EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL, ACE/USA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCATION

This case involves claims for reimbursement between two insurers covering applicant's industrial injuries. CIGA, representing an insolvent insurer, sought reimbursement from ACE/USA for medical benefits paid. The arbitrator initially awarded CIGA approximately $105,000, later amended to $138,555.15 due to a clerical error. ACE/USA petitioned for reconsideration, arguing CIGA's claim was untimely and improperly based on contribution or subrogation. The Board dismissed CIGA's petition as moot because the corrected award had already been issued. The Board denied ACE/USA's petition, clarifying CIGA's claim was for reimbursement under Insurance Code section 1063.1, not untimely contribution or subrogation, and that ACE/USA was liable due to providing "other insurance" for the same injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAACE/USAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyinsolvencycumulative injuryspecific injuryreimbursementcontribution
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07628
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2017

Solorzano v. Skanska USA Building, Inc.

Juan Maria Solorzano, an asbestos and lead abatement worker, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction project manager, following a fall from scaffolding. Solorzano alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied his summary judgment motion due to inconsistencies in his deposition testimony regarding the accident's cause. A jury subsequently ruled in favor of Skanska, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that Solorzano failed to establish a prima facie case under the Labor Law provisions, citing his contradictory testimony and the presence of guardrails on the scaffold.

Scaffolding accidentLabor Law violationsSummary judgmentJury verdictAppellate reviewPersonal injuryConstruction site safetyNegligenceProximate causeDeposition inconsistency
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Yvonne Fleming, an African-American woman and former Director of Human Resources and Payroll for MaxMara USA, Inc., sued her employer and two individual supervisors, John Gleeson and Luigi Caroggio, alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law. Fleming claimed that Gleeson made a racially charged comment, and both Gleeson and Caroggio subjected her to poor treatment and derogatory remarks. She also asserted retaliation after reporting alleged preferential treatment of Italian employees. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Fleming's termination, including performance issues and failure to follow company protocols. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, finding that Fleming failed to establish a prima facie case for race discrimination (partially due to being replaced by another African-American woman), that the hostile work environment claims lacked sufficient severity or pervasiveness or were time-barred, and that the retaliation claims did not overcome the defendants' legitimate business reasons.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York City Human Rights LawSummary Judgment MotionAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CasePretext
References
63
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07307 [154 AD3d 538]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Cortes v. Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting summary judgment to defendant Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc., and dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff Luis Cortes, an employee of Phoenix Constructors, a joint venture that included Skanska, fell from a stair tower. The court ruled that plaintiff's exclusive remedy against Skanska was workers' compensation, as Skanska was a member of his employer's joint venture. The plaintiff's arguments regarding the alter ego doctrine and an independent duty owed by Skanska were rejected, citing established case law which prohibits treating an employer as a dual legal personality.

Workers' CompensationJoint VentureExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawEmployer LiabilityDual Legal PersonalityStatutory InterpretationWorkplace Injury
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02098 [181 AD3d 523]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2020

Rossi v. Doka USA, Ltd.

Plaintiff Domenick Rossi, a carpenter, sustained injuries while using a ratchet at a World Trade Center construction site, asserting a product liability claim against defendant Doka USA, Ltd., which supplied the tool. The Supreme Court dismissed Rossi's complaint for spoliation of evidence (the missing ratchet) and denied his cross-motion for sanctions against Doka for alleged email destruction. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the absence of the ratchet did not fatally prejudice Doka's defense, thus reinstating Rossi's complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Rossi's cross-motion for spoliation sanctions, finding insufficient evidence of Doka's culpable conduct regarding email preservation.

Product liabilitySpoliation of evidenceDesign defectRatchetWorkplace injuryConstruction accidentAppellate procedureSanctionsNegligenceProximate cause
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Structural Preservation Systems (SPS), was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while performing structural repairs in a building owned by 500 Lincoln, LLC and leased by DHL Express (USA), Inc. The plaintiff commenced an action against both entities, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln and denied DHL's motions for summary judgment to dismiss various claims against it. On appeal, the court modified the Supreme Court's decision, determining that DHL should have been granted summary judgment dismissing all Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against it, as DHL neither directed nor controlled the work. The court also found that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln should have been denied due to triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and the availability of adequate safety devices.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationProximate CauseSafe Place to WorkOwner LiabilityLessee Liability
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Jermaine Washington, a Black employee, filed a pro se employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Washington alleged racial discrimination based on increased payroll responsibilities, denied transfers to higher-paying sites, and a manager's "threatening" email. He also claimed retaliation after being allegedly threatened with termination for not signing employment documents and experiencing a temporary loss of compensation during a transfer. The court, presided over by Hon. Michael A. Telesca, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Washington failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination and that the alleged retaliatory actions did not constitute materially adverse employment actions or were not causally linked to protected activity. Consequently, Washington's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionFailure to PromoteEmployment At-WillPayroll ResponsibilitiesEmployer-Employee DisputeFederal Court
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 356 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