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

Lang v. City of New York

This concurring memorandum addresses a personal injury action brought by plaintiffs Lang and Pokorny against defendant Lawrence and municipal defendants following a severe automobile accident. The jury initially apportioned culpability and awarded damages, but a dispute arose regarding a no-fault carrier's lien on the plaintiffs' recovery. Special Term had vacated this lien. Judge O'Connor concurs with the majority's decision to reverse the judgment and grant a new trial solely on the issue of damages. This reversal is based on the trial court's improper exclusion of evidence concerning plaintiffs' basic economic loss against the municipal defendants, who were not considered "covered" persons under the relevant insurance act. Furthermore, the memorandum delves into the broader legal principle of insurance liens, arguing that such liens should attach to any recovery, not just basic economic loss, drawing parallels between the Insurance Law and the Workers' Compensation Law.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LienBasic Economic LossWorkers' Compensation Law ParallelDamages AssessmentNew TrialReversal of JudgmentConcurring Opinion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lang v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK

Plaintiffs Cliff and Betsy Lang filed a putative class action against First American Title Insurance Company of New York, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and New York General Business Law § 349. The plaintiffs claimed they were overcharged for title insurance during a mortgage refinancing, as they did not receive a discounted rate they believed they were entitled to under state law. Defendant moved to dismiss the RESPA claim, arguing that RESPA § 8(b) does not provide a private right of action for 'overcharges'. The court granted the motion to dismiss the RESPA claim, finding that RESPA § 8(b) prohibits fees for unperformed services or splits, not simply excessive charges. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

RESPATitle InsuranceMortgage RefinancingOvercharge ClaimsMotion to DismissFederal CourtState LawSupplemental JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationPleading Standards
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lange v. Town of Monroe

Plaintiff Linda Lange sued the Town of Monroe, Town Board Members Donald Weeks and Sandy Leonard, and Highway Department Superintendent Roy Montanye, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and N.Y. Exec. L. § 296. Lange claimed sexual harassment by Montanye between 1994-1995, including gifts, cards, and attempted kisses. After she rebuffed him, Montanye allegedly retaliated by withholding information, preventing assistance to her department, and hiring a secretary without her input. Lange also alleged that Town Board members failed to act on her complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint. It ruled that direct sexual harassment claims were time-barred. Retaliation claims under § 1983 based on equal protection were dismissed as not cognizable, and retaliation for rebuffing advances against Montanye was dismissed due to improper service for individual capacity claims and lack of adverse employment action or policymaking authority for official capacity claims. Quid pro quo harassment claims failed as Montanye was not her supervisor, and hostile work environment claims were rejected due to insufficient severity or pervasiveness of the alleged conduct. State law claims under N.Y. Exec. L. § 296 were also dismissed.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationEqual Protection ClauseSection 1983Summary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentStatute of LimitationsMunicipal LiabilityEmployment Discrimination
References
48
Case No. ADJ2088268 (MON0341079)
Regular
Dec 07, 2012

ERNESTINA MORALES (Deceased), MARIO R. CHAVARRIA, DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. SHEILA HARTMAN, ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., SHEILA HARTMAN MANAGEMENT CO., BENEDICT CANYON PRODUCTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the compensability of a housekeeper's death that occurred on her employer's premises. The appellate board granted reconsideration but affirmed the WCJ's decision finding the death arose out of and in the course of employment under the "bunkhouse rule," despite the decedent not working weekends. It also clarified that the decedent was employed by Sheila Hartman individually, not by related production companies. The board found no error in dismissing the other companies and their insurer, as this was a determination of employment status, not a coverage dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationErnestina MoralesSheila HartmanAllstate Insurance Co.Specialty Risk ServicesSheila Hartman Management Co.Benedict Canyon ProductionsState Compensation Insurance FundWCJ
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delishi v. Property Owner USA LLC

Plaintiff Haxhi Delishi sued multiple defendants after he slipped and fell at a construction site in New York County on November 14, 2005, while working for Collins Building Services, Inc. He alleged negligence against the named defendants for causing or allowing the dangerous condition (a piece of cardboard covering a metal pipe) or failing to warn him. Several defendants, including Stateside Contracting Co., Inc., Jordan Daniels Electrical Contractors, Inc., Property Owner (USA), LLC, HSBC North America, Inc., and Jones Lang LaSalle Services, Inc., moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims against them. Third-party defendant Collins also moved for dismissal of Jones Lang's third-party complaint. The court, presided over by Justice Jack M. Battaglia, denied all motions for summary judgment, finding that none of the moving parties had established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, partly due to issues with inadmissible deposition testimony and insufficient evidence regarding creation of the condition or notice of it.

Slip and FallConstruction Site InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationContributionAdmissibility of Deposition TranscriptsDangerous Condition
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheila C. v. Povich

Sheila C., a minor, filed a complaint alleging negligence against the Maury Povich Show and its staff after she was raped by a limousine driver associated with the show. The plaintiff claimed the defendants' negligent acts, including inadequate supervision and instructions to act provocatively, led to her assault. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the negligence and negligent hiring/retention claims, recognizing a duty of care for minors under supervision. However, claims for emotional distress and negligence per se were dismissed, and the slander claim was dismissed with leave to replead. The plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend was mostly denied.

Talk Show TortsNegligent SupervisionChild EndangermentEmotional Distress ClaimSlander ClaimNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionMotion to DismissDuty of CareForeseeability
References
71
Case No. ADJ11664933
Regular
Oct 05, 2020

SHEILA RANCOUR vs. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS

This case involves Sheila Rancourt's workers' compensation claim against Save Mart Supermarkets. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award due to the omission of future medical treatment. Despite the parties not explicitly listing this issue, the Board found that a prior stipulation requiring further medical treatment mandated its inclusion. Consequently, the Board amended the original award to include all future medical treatment necessary to cure or relieve the applicant's injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSave Mart SupermarketsCorvel Corp.Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportfuture medical treatmentLabor Code section 5702stipulationMinutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidencefull adjudication
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Newsom-Lang v. Warren International, Inc.

Plaintiff Francis Newsom-Lang sued Warren International, Inc. alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Executive Law Section 296. Plaintiff claimed she suffered age discrimination through adverse job search assignments, denial of a promotion to Director of Research, and termination of her employment. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of employer status under ADEA and insufficient evidence for discrimination claims. The Court, assuming defendant met the employer definition, found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for job search assignments and failed to rebut defendant's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying promotion and termination with evidence of age discrimination pretext. Consequently, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing plaintiff's federal and state claims with prejudice, but denied defendant's request for attorneys' fees.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentADEANew York Executive LawFailure to PromoteWrongful TerminationRetaliationPrima Facie CasePretext
References
21
Case No. ADJ8427389
Regular
Nov 04, 2013

DEBBIE LANG vs. INSIGHT INVESTMENTS, LLC., ONEBEACON AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant Debbie Lang's Petition for Reconsideration in Case No. ADJ8427389. This action was taken because the WCAB requires more time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision. Further proceedings may be ordered as necessary. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the WCAB Commissioners' office, not district offices, and e-filing is prohibited during this period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatutory time constraintsFactual issuesLegal issuesJust and reasoned decisionFurther proceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemAnaheim District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ3742197 (SJO 0243687)
Regular
Sep 09, 2015

SHEILA VANZANT LEWIS vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sheila VanZant Lewis's petition for reconsideration because it was filed late. The petition was filed on July 16, 2015, which was more than 25 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision on May 13, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration outside the statutory timeframe is considered untimely and deprives the Board of jurisdiction to consider it. Therefore, the Board had no authority to act on the petition and was required to dismiss it.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJJurisdictionalService of DecisionMailing ExtensionProof of FilingSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 47 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