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

Powers v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Steve Powers, a former television reporter, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against Fox Television Stations, Inc. following his employment termination in 1992, citing violations of New York State and City human rights laws. Fox subsequently removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, referencing an arbitration clause within Powers' 1992 employment agreement, and to stay the ongoing action. Powers contended that his employment contract was exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that his claims fell outside the arbitration clause's scope. The court, relying on Second Circuit precedents, disagreed with Powers' interpretation, concluding that the FAA's employment contract exclusion was limited to the transportation industry and that the broadly worded arbitration clause encompassed the dispute. Consequently, the court granted Fox's motions, compelling arbitration and staying the civil action.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract LawStatutory InterpretationMotion to CompelStay of ProceedingsSecond Circuit PrecedentNew York Human Rights LawArbitration Clause Scope
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mattarelliano v. Moish Gas Stations, Inc.

In this personal injury action, the court reviewed an appeal regarding motions for summary judgment. The appellate court modified a lower court order by granting summary judgment to Chuck Realty Corp., thereby dismissing the complaint against it. However, the claims against Moish Gas Stations, Inc. were not dismissed, as the court found it to be a distinct legal entity from the employer and not an alter ego. The original order was affirmed in all other respects. This decision clarifies corporate liability and the application of Workers' Compensation Law in multi-party litigation.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCorporate LiabilityAlter EgoWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityThird-Party ActionCross-MotionDismissal
References
4
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06183 [120 AD3d 1315]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2014

McDonald v. Winter Bros. Transfer Station Corp.

The plaintiff, Andrew McDonald, appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendant Winter Bros. Transfer Station Corp.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, holding that the defendant established a prima facie defense under the Workers' Compensation Law. The court found that the defendant and the plaintiff's employer, Winter Bros. Waste Systems, Inc., operate as a single integrated entity, thereby extending workers' compensation protection to the defendant as an alter ego of the employer. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to this defense, leading to the proper dismissal of the complaint.

Alter Ego DoctrineWorkers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityIntegrated EntityAppellate DivisionSuffolk CountyTriable Issue of FactRespondent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Steinhauser v. Ontario County

A motor vehicle representative experienced pain in her right elbow and hand after being required to work in an abnormal position at a new work station. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge classified her condition as an occupational disease. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reclassified it as an accidental injury, citing September 28, 2000, as the accident date. The employer appealed, contesting the change in theory and denying an accident occurred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, drawing parallels to a previous case, Matter of Farcasin v PDG, Inc., involving similar circumstances of injuries from an ergonomically incorrect work station.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseErgonomicsWork Station InjuryElbow InjuryHand InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCausation
References
1
Case No. SFO 499333
Regular
May 30, 2008

CARMENCITA REDOBLE vs. CHEVRON STATIONS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that applied the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) to an applicant's psyche injury. The defendant argued that the older 1997 PDRS should have been used, based on a supposed requirement to issue a Labor Code section 4061 notice before January 1, 2005. However, the Board found no evidence in the record to support the defendant's claim that the notice was required or issued, thus upholding the application of the 2005 PDRS.

Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS)Labor Code Section 4061Labor Code Section 4660Industrial InjuryPsyche InjuryArmed RobberyTemporary DisabilityPermanent and StationaryApportionment
References
0
Case No. CA 16-00548
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2017

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD OF STAT v. OLD LAMSON STATION, INC.

The defendant appealed an order denying its motion to vacate a money judgment. The Workers’ Compensation Board, as plaintiff, had unilaterally vacated the challenged judgment prior to the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion. Consequently, the Appellate Division dismissed the appeal as moot, determining that the defendant was no longer aggrieved by the judgment, and the case did not meet the exception to the mootness doctrine.

Mootness DoctrineVacate JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewJurisdictionAggrieved PartyNew York State LawProcedural DismissalMoney JudgmentAppellate Division Fourth Department
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Gas Stations, Inc. v. Doe

This Per Curiam decision addresses an action for a permanent injunction filed by an unnamed gas station owner against unnamed defendants who were picketing the plaintiff's places of business. The picketing arose after the plaintiff had a sign erected by non-union labor, though the plaintiff was not involved in the sign erection industry. The court determined that this dispute did not constitute a 'labor dispute' under section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, as there was no controversy with the plaintiff or its employees concerning labor terms or conditions. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite. However, the court reversed the granting of the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint and denied that motion, allowing defendants leave to answer.

Labor LawPicketingInjunctionCivil Practice ActLabor DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsGas StationAppellate DecisionAffirmationReversal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Katsilogiannis v. Spiro's Service Station, Inc.

The claimant suffered head and back injuries in a taxicab accident while purportedly on an errand for Spiro’s Service Station, Inc., where she served as president and manager. Her husband, Demitrios Katsilogiannis, testified about the incident, but his testimony was deemed incredible by the Workers’ Compensation Board due to inconsistencies. These included an employer’s report signed by him as corporate vice-president, stating the accident occurred while returning from the New York City Department of Rent and Occupancy Tax, contradicting his claim of an errand. Consequently, the Board concluded the accident did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. The claimant appealed this decision, asserting a lack of substantial evidence, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing its authority to determine witness credibility.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentEmployment ScopeWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceInjury ClaimTaxicabErrand
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2013

Cambridge Owners Corp. v. New York City Department of Transportation

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment denying a petition that challenged the Department of Transportation's decision to install a City Bike Share station. The petitioner argued that the determination was arbitrary, capricious, and violated the City Environmental Quality Review Act. However, the motion court concluded that the respondent's decision was based on sufficient environmental review, adhered to siting guidelines, and possessed a rational basis, thus dismissing the proceeding. The judgment, entered on October 30, 2013, was unanimously affirmed.

City Bike ShareEnvironmental ReviewCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousDepartment of TransportationNew York CountyLand UseUrban PlanningPublic ProjectsJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cedar Brook Service Station, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

Plaintiffs, eleven New York service station dealers, brought an action against Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Cumberland Farms Inc., challenging Chevron's sale of motor fuel properties to Cumberland. Plaintiffs argued the sale violated the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) by terminating or not renewing their franchises. Defendants moved for reconsideration of a prior decision that denied them summary judgment, citing recent federal court rulings. The court, upon reconsideration, found that an assignment valid under state law does not constitute a termination or failure to renew a franchise relationship under the PMPA, provided the franchisee's core rights are maintained. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that the assignment harmed their franchises or violated New York law. Consequently, the court vacated its previous order and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Petroleum Marketing Practices ActFranchise LawSummary JudgmentContract AssignmentMarket WithdrawalFederal LawNew York LawStatutory InterpretationDealer RightsReconsideration
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 161 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