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

Hanna v. Clarke

Albert J. Hanna, an executive delegate of Buffalo Local No. 1, brought an action against Paul J. Clarke, president of the Empire State Telephone Workers’ Organization, seeking a declaratory judgment. Hanna challenged his removal by the union's executive committee for allegedly not taking an active part in a meeting. He argued he was deprived of a fair hearing, as his request for postponement due to dental surgery was denied, and that his actions did not warrant charges under the union's constitution. The court found that while Hanna's actions were "childish, undignified and irritating," they did not justify the charges. Consequently, the court granted Hanna a declaratory judgment, declaring the executive committee's action null and void and enjoining them from disapproving his redesignation on the grounds previously stated.

Declaratory JudgmentUnion LawExecutive DelegateFair HearingDue ProcessUnion ConstitutionInternal Union DisputeWorkers' RightsPostponement RefusalExecutive Committee
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2002

Shields v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff Martin Shields, employed by third-party defendant Raytheon Constructors, Inc., suffered an injury while fabricating flanges for a rail car unloading building at a General Electric (GE) site. Shields and his spouse initiated an action against GE and Arayco, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims but partially denied the motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On cross-appeals, the court affirmed the dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, concluding GE lacked supervisory control. It also affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding 12 NYCRR 23-1.10 (b) (1) sufficiently specific but noting unresolved factual questions about proximate cause.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeProximate CauseSummary JudgmentSupervisory ControlOn-Off SwitchHand Tool Safety
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03703
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2020

Matter of Djukic v. Hanna Andersson, LLC

Claimant Anela Djukic, a sales lead for Hanna Andersson, LLC, slipped and fell inside a shopping mall entrance on her way to work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established her claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that for off-premises accidents to be compensable, there must be a special hazard at the location and a close association of the access route with the employment premises. The court found no evidence that the chosen entrance served a business purpose, was controlled by the employer, or presented a risk specifically related to claimant's employment, concluding the wet ground condition was a general danger to any passerby.

off-premises injurygoing and coming rulespecial hazard exceptionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Divisionslip and fallmall entrancecourse of employmentarise out of employmentemployer control
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Neurological Assocs., P.C. v. Highmark Blue Shield & Reed Smith LLP

Plaintiff Long Island Neurological Associates, P.C. sued Highmark Blue Shield and Reed Smith LLP for under-reimbursement of surgical services under ERISA. The case involved a 4-year-old patient who received complex out-of-network surgery from Dr. Schneider due to the unavailability of in-network providers. Highmark significantly under-reimbursed the billed amount and denied multiple appeals, failing to provide requested documentation. The patient's parents assigned their rights to the Plaintiff, leading Defendants to move for dismissal, asserting an anti-assignment provision in their Administrative Service Agreement (ASA). The Court denied the motion, ruling that the ASA is not an ERISA plan document and thus its anti-assignment clause is not binding on plan participants, confirming Plaintiff's standing. The Rule 12(b)(6) motion was also denied as abandoned.

ERISAMotion to DismissAnti-assignment clauseAdministrative Service Agreement (ASA)Plan DocumentSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingUnder-reimbursementOut-of-network providerHealth Insurance
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2010

In re Alicia G.

The case concerns a petition for permanent neglect filed by Heartshare Human Services against Hanna Muhammad and Al G., the incarcerated parents of Alicia. The court examined whether the agency made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and if the parents adequately planned for Alicia's future, considering their incarceration. The petition against the mother, Hanna Muhammad, was dismissed as the agency failed to convincingly prove a lack of planning or cooperation. However, the petition against the father, Al G., was granted due to his failure to plan, with his disposition adjourned to a later date. The decision highlights the nuanced application of Social Services Law § 384-b for incarcerated parents.

Permanent NeglectIncarcerated ParentsSocial Services LawParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsParental PlanningFoster CareChild WelfareNew York Family LawChild Best Interests
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Screen Gems-Emi Music Inc.

Plaintiff Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. sued Screen Gems-EMI Music Inc., Colgems-EMI Music Inc. (collectively EMI), and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) for copyright infringement and state law violations. EMI moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the claims were primarily based on contract law, not copyright law. The court applied the three-part Schoenberg v. Shapolsky Publishers, Inc. test, determining that Hanna-Barbera's infringement claim was incidental to contract disputes, not a breach of a condition to a copyright contract, and EMI's actions did not constitute a material breach creating a right of rescission. The court found that the central issue revolved around the interpretation of contracts regarding copyright ownership and revenue distribution, which falls under state contract law. Therefore, the court granted EMI's motion, dismissing both federal and state claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Copyright infringementContract disputeSubject matter jurisdictionFederal courtLicense agreementRoyaltiesMusic copyrightsDismissalSecond Circuit lawSchoenberg test
References
19
Case No. 11-cv-4917; 11-cv-5073; 11-cv-5556
Regular Panel Decision

Shields v. Murdoch

This case involves consolidated shareholder derivative actions against News Corporation directors and officers, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The claims stem from scandals involving phone hacking and bribery by News Corp. subsidiaries, particularly News of the World. Defendants sought to stay the federal proceedings pending a parallel state action in Delaware. The court denied the motions to stay for plaintiffs Shields and Iron Workers, asserting that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the Exchange Act claims. Additionally, plaintiff Stricklin's amended complaint was dismissed due to a lack of subject matter diversity jurisdiction, though leave was granted to file a second amended complaint.

Shareholder Derivative ActionSecurities Exchange ActFiduciary DutyCorporate MismanagementCorporate GovernanceAbstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionExclusive Federal Jurisdiction
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. State Division of Human Rights

This decision vacates a previous order and remands the matter to the State Division of Human Rights for a hearing. The initial court had dismissed a complaint, finding New York's Human Rights Law pre-empted by ERISA regarding pregnancy disability benefits. The Court of Appeals remitted for reconsideration in light of Shaw v Delta Airlines, which clarified that pre-emption only applies when a state law prohibits practices lawful under federal law. The court noted that the discrimination, alleged in 1977, predated the federal prohibition against pregnancy discrimination (effective April 29, 1979). However, ERISA exempts plans maintained solely for complying with disability insurance laws. The record is unclear if petitioner's plan is a separate plan (where NY Human Rights Law would apply) or part of a larger employee benefit plan (where ERISA would control). Therefore, the case is remanded for a determination on this specific factual issue only.

ERISA Pre-emptionHuman Rights LawPregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawState Law Pre-emptionFederal Law ConflictRemittiturEmployee Benefit PlansJudicial RemandWorkers' Compensation Law Art 9
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1999

Garofalo v. Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Plaintiffs Laurie Garofalo and Hilary Rosser, as class representatives, sued their health insurer, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, under ERISA. They alleged Empire paid less than its required 80% share of certain inpatient hospital expenses due to a bimodal coinsurance calculation method (actual charges for participants, DRG rates for insurer). Plaintiffs argued this method violated New York Public Health Law § 2807-c(12) and was preempted by ERISA. The court granted summary judgment to Empire, ruling that its calculation method complied with the NYPHRM, specifically § 2807-c(11)(n)(i), and that ERISA did not preempt this state law as it regulates insurance. The court found plaintiffs lacked standing for the remaining claims and dismissed all inpatient hospitalization claims with prejudice.

ERISA LitigationHealth Insurance LawCoinsurance CalculationDRG RatesSummary JudgmentClass Action LawsuitPlaintiff StandingStatutory PreemptionNew York Public Health LawEmpire Blue Cross Blue Shield
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Consolidated Welfare Fund

Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Empire) sued the Consolidated Welfare Fund and other defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and RICO violations. The defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the state law claims were preempted by ERISA. The court analyzed whether the Fund qualified as an 'employee welfare benefit plan' (EWBP) under ERISA. Finding that the Fund, with its 'associate members' from diverse backgrounds and commercial solicitation, did not meet the criteria of an EWBP, the court concluded that ERISA preemption did not apply. Therefore, the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings was denied, allowing Empire's state law claims to proceed.

ERISA PreemptionEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanHealth Insurance FraudLabor Union MembershipAssociate MembersRule 12(c) MotionFederal Civil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationCommercial Insurance SchemesDistrict Court Ruling
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 92 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