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

Accardi v. Control Data Corp.

This case, a Memorandum and Order by District Judge Whitman Knapp, addresses an ERISA action where plaintiffs sought severance pay from their former employer, Control Data Corporation (CDC), following the sale of their division to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP). Plaintiffs, initially employees of an IBM subsidiary, had their benefits, including severance pay, protected by a "Benefits Agreement" adopted by CDC upon acquisition. CDC denied severance, arguing the IBM plan didn't cover divestitures and citing its own policy. The court, applying an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, found CDC's interpretation of the IBM benefits plan, which it had adopted, to be clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the IBM plan indeed provided for severance in cases of dismissals due to division sales and did not require unemployment or prohibit "double recovery." Consequently, the court denied CDC's motion for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiffs.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationsCorporate DivestitureAcquisitionBenefit Plan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardControl Data Corporation
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05898
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2023

Reyes v. Episcopal Senior Hous. Greece, LLC

Plaintiff, Miguel Reyes, was injured when a window fell on his head during a demolition project, leading him to file an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied his motion for partial summary judgment on liability, citing a triable issue on whether his conduct was the sole proximate cause. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted the third-party defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed both decisions. It found that plaintiff's conduct was, at most, comparative negligence and not the sole proximate cause, thus granting his motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The Appellate Division also reinstated the third-party complaint, determining that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether plaintiff suffered a grave injury as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Construction Site SafetyDemolition ProjectFall from HeightLabor Law Section 240(1)Scaffolding SafetyComparative NegligenceSole Proximate Cause DefenseSummary Judgment MotionGrave Injury DefinitionThird-Party Indemnification
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00169 [168 AD3d 1199]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2019

Matter of Villagra v. Sunrise Senior Living Mgt.

Claimant Rosalind M. Villagra sought workers' compensation benefits after an injury sustained at work. Her claim was initially disallowed by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) due to a lack of prima facie medical evidence. Subsequently, claimant filed an application for Board review, requesting a rehearing or reopening of her claim, arguing the WCLJ's decision was inconsistent. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her application, deeming it an untimely appeal from the WCLJ's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board applied an incorrect statutory framework and should have evaluated the application as one for rehearing or reopening.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimeliness of AppealApplication for RehearingReopening of ClaimPrima Facie Medical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory FrameworkProcedural ErrorRemittal to Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1998

Correia v. Professional Data Management, Inc.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by Creative Finishes, Ltd., fell 16 feet from an elevated platform while working at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan, sustaining multiple fractures. He initiated an action against the building owner (Professional Data Management, Inc.), construction manager (Gotham Construction Corp.), and building manager (Williamson, Picket & Gross, Inc.), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Gotham subsequently impleaded Creative Finishes, Ltd. for contractual and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied Gotham's cross-motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no evidence to support a recalcitrant worker defense and noting that factual questions regarding Gotham's own negligence, distinct from its statutory liability, precluded summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim.

Labor LawScaffoldingAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseGeneral Obligations LawConstruction AccidentPainter Fall
References
9
Case No. ADJ7750099
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

JERRI USREY vs. SIERRA OAKS SENIOR CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to affirm the finding that Sierra Oaks Senior Center violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating applicant Jerri Usrey's employment due to her filing a workers' compensation claim. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning on witness credibility and evidence resolution. However, the determination of reinstatement and lost wages was deferred due to insufficient evidence regarding the availability of suitable work and applicant's ability to perform it. The award of $10,000 for the section 132a violation was affirmed, with further proceedings to address reinstatement and lost wages.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardreinstatementlost wagespoor performanceindustrial injuryadverse treatmentcredibility assessmenttrier of fact
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Atria Senior Living Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernest Rodriguez sued his former employer Atria Senior Living Group under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rodriguez moved for partial summary judgment on one ADA reasonable accommodation claim, one ADA retaliation claim, and six FMLA interference claims. The Court denied Rodriguez's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. The Court granted summary judgment to Atria on the ADA reasonable accommodation claim, the ADA retaliation claim, and four of the FMLA claims, finding no genuine disputes of material fact. However, for two FMLA claims concerning health insurance premiums and concurrent workers' compensation leave, the Court denied summary judgment to both parties due to unresolved factual disputes.

ADA accommodationADA retaliationFMLA interferenceSummary judgmentMedical leaveDisability discrimination100% healed policyHealth insurance premiumsWorkers' compensationEmployee benefits
References
18
Case No. ADJ6729351
Regular
Jul 06, 2012

TERESA MALDONADO vs. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, SEDGWICK CMS

This case, *Maldonado v. Sunrise Senior Living*, involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB reviewed the petition for reconsideration and the administrative law judge's report. Finding no grounds to overturn the initial decision, the WCAB formally denied the petition for reconsideration. The order adopting the judge's reasoning implies the original ruling was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSunrise Senior LivingSedgwick CMSADJ6729351Long Beach District OfficeDenying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge ReportRecord ReviewAdopt and Incorporate
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP v. Daley (In Re Daley)

Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP (GSS) initiated an adversary proceeding against William Stewart Daley, the debtor in a Chapter 7 case. GSS sought subrogation to the nondischargeable claim of Daley's former wife, Sally Peters, arguing that GSS had secured her claim against Daley. Peters had a prior lien on proceeds from Daley's employment action, which was negotiated by Shoemaker, an attorney who later joined GSS. The Appellate Division ruled Peters' lien was superior to GSS's charging lien due to the attorneys' awareness and participation in the settlement agreement. The court ultimately concluded that GSS did not pay Peters out of its own property and thus could not be subrogated to her rights. Therefore, Daley's motion to dismiss GSS's complaint for failure to state a claim was granted.

SubrogationCharging LienAttorney's FeesLien PriorityBankruptcy Code § 509(a)Marital ClaimsEquitable Ownership InterestMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Appellate Division
References
18
Case No. ADJ8501384
Regular
Dec 30, 2014

ARTEMIO VASQUEZ vs. INTEGRAL SENIOR LIVING, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Artemio Vasquez, against Integral Senior Living and Helmsman Management Services. The applicant sought removal due to incomplete discovery, specifically concerning a neurologist, internist, and sleep study, and alleged prejudice from proceeding to trial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report. The Board found the objection untimely, noted the applicant's failure to object to the Declaration of Readiness or diligently pursue discovery, and concluded that any issues with the PQME report could be addressed by the trial judge or via post-trial remedies, thus not causing irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerAOE/COE
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 353 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