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

ICG Link, Inc. v. Philip Steen v. TN Sports, LLC v. ICG Link, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between ICG Link, Inc., a website development company, and Nashville Sports Leagues, LLC, TN Sports, LLC, and Philip Steen, regarding payment for website development services. The trial court found no express contract but imposed a quasi-contract, awarding ICG $27,806.34 and holding Philip Steen personally liable. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's finding of a quasi-contract and Mr. Steen's personal liability. However, the appellate court modified the monetary award, determining ICG was entitled to $13,952.88 after accounting for the value of benefits received and deductions.

Website DevelopmentBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitPersonal LiabilityLLCMutual AssentContract IndefinitenessAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arena v. Arena

This is an appeal brought by Javier Arena following a judgment in favor of his former spouse, Ellen Francis Arena. The dispute originated from a divorce proceeding where Ellen sought to enforce and clarify the Decree of Divorce concerning her share of Javier's retirement plans and damages for delayed payments. Javier argued that the enforcement action was preempted by ERISA and that distribution was prohibited by federal law. The court determined that the Decree of Divorce constituted a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), thereby exempting it from ERISA preemption. It also found Javier liable in his individual capacity for the delay in transferring assets. The judgment was affirmed with modifications to ensure consistency with the findings of fact and conclusions of law, awarding Ellen Arena $49,537.78 plus interest, and setting aside attorney's fees awarded for appeal.

DivorceERISAQDRORetirement BenefitsProperty DivisionAttorney's FeesConversionFederal PreemptionSpousal RightsFiduciary Duty
References
17
Case No. 533376
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Arena

Michael Arena appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Board concluded that Arena misrepresented his functional capabilities regarding a work-related lower back injury from January 2020. Surveillance videos showed Arena engaging in various strenuous activities, contradicting his claims of 100% disability and his testimony minimizing his efforts. As a result, the Board imposed mandatory penalties, including disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence to support the finding of material misrepresentations and the appropriateness of the imposed penalties.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationDisability BenefitsSurveillance VideoAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFunctional CapabilitiesPenaltiesWage Replacement Benefits
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Arena v. Delux Transportation Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Joseph Arena sued Delux Transportation Services, Inc. and related entities, claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York State Labor Law (NYLL), New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), and wrongful conversion. Arena argued he was an employee entitled to labor law protections, while defendants asserted he was an independent contractor. The Court applied the "economic reality test" under both FLSA and New York law, considering factors like control over work, opportunity for profit/loss, skill, permanence of relationship, and integral nature of the work. The Court found that Arena drove at his convenience, set his own schedule, retained all fares, and was not significantly controlled or supervised by the defendants. Consequently, the Court determined there was no employer-employee relationship under either FLSA or New York law, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing all claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorEconomic Reality TestTaxicab DriverWage ClaimsOvertime PayMinimum Wage
References
32
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05119
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2022

Matter of Arena v. Upstate Niagara Coop. Inc.

Michael Arena appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and consequently disqualified him from receiving future wage replacement benefits. The Board had reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's earlier finding, concluding that Arena misrepresented his functional capabilities. This conclusion was largely based on surveillance videos depicting Arena engaged in strenuous activities, which contradicted both his testimony and medical classifications indicating 100% disability. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that substantial evidence supported the finding of material misrepresentations. As a result, both the mandatory and discretionary penalties imposed by the Board were upheld.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aDisability MisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation BoardSurveillance Video EvidenceFraudulent ClaimWage Replacement BenefitsAppellate DivisionCredibility AssessmentLumbar Disc ExtrusionMedical Evidence
References
11
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Case No. 19-0497
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2021

in Re Academy, Ltd. D/B/A Academy Sports + Outdoors

This case concerns a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Academy Sports + Outdoors, a retailer from which the perpetrator of the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting purchased a weapon. The plaintiffs, victims and their families, sued Academy for negligence and related claims. Academy sought summary judgment under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally shields firearm retailers from liability for third-party criminal conduct, but the trial court denied it. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed whether the PLCAA's predicate exception (for knowing violation of a statute applicable to sale) or negligent entrustment exception applied. The Court held that Academy did not violate the Gun Control Act regarding the sale of the rifle or magazines, and that Texas law does not recognize negligent entrustment based on a sale. Consequently, the PLCAA bars the lawsuits, and the Court conditionally granted Academy's petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to grant summary judgment.

Firearm liabilityPLCAAMandamusSummary judgmentNegligent entrustmentGun Control ActStatutory interpretationFederal preemptionTexas Supreme CourtProduct liability
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Bethbowl Corp. & Local Union 3108 United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America A.F.L.-C.I.O.

Bethbowl Corporation sought to stay arbitration initiated by a union, arguing it did not inherit a union agreement after purchasing the assets of Bethpage Bowl from Sports Arenas, Inc. The prior agreement, between the union and Sports Arenas, Inc., included an automatic renewal clause that was not terminated. The court applied Federal Labor Law principles, specifically the 'continuity of identity' standard, noting the business continued under the same name and the petitioner's president (formerly manager) was aware of the union. The court concluded that Bethbowl Corporation was bound by the agreement, dismissing the petition to stay arbitration and holding that the question of agreement termination was for the arbitrator.

Arbitration LawLabor ArbitrationCollective BargainingSuccessor EmployerCorporate Asset SaleUnion Contract RenewalFederal Labor Law ApplicationContinuity of Business IdentityCPLR 7503 (b)Stay of Arbitration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arena v. Schulman, LeRoy & Bennett

J. Anthony Arena, an attorney, appealed a trial court's decision upholding an agreement requiring him to share 50% of contingency fees if he practiced in Davidson County after leaving his firm, Schulman, LeRoy, and Bennett, P.C. Arena argued the agreement violated Tennessee's public policy against restraints on the practice of law. The appellate court found the agreement's economic disincentive to practice in Davidson County constituted an impermissible restraint on the practice of law, violating Rule 5.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, deeming the provision unenforceable and denying the firm quantum meruit relief since the firm had an agreement to forego fees if Arena practiced outside the restricted area.

Attorney AgreementContingency FeesRestraint of TradePublic PolicyShareholders' AgreementLaw Firm WithdrawalProfessional EthicsTennessee LawForfeiture ClauseEconomic Disincentive
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. NYC Health & Hospital Corp.

Plaintiff Collette Henry, an African-American woman, sued her employer, New York City Health & Hospital Corporation (HHC), and supervisors Arena and Boylan, alleging race and gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Henry claimed Arena made racially charged remarks, mocked her appearance, and subjected her to adverse employment actions after she complained. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the federal and state discrimination and retaliation claims, finding Henry failed to plausibly allege an adverse employment action or discriminatory intent. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her city-law NYCHRL claims.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981NYSHRLNYCHRLMotion to DismissAdverse Employment Action
References
79
Showing 1-10 of 74 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