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
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1994

Claim of Boshart v. St. Francis Hospital

The claimant, a hospital employee, stopped working due to an aggravated preexisting back condition and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Her claim was initially denied, but a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found prima facie medical evidence for an occupational back condition. Upon appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board rejected the employer's contention that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, ruling the employer had waived this defense. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer failed to raise the Statute of Limitations defense at the first hearing where all parties were present, thereby waiving the right to assert it.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsWaiverOccupational DiseaseBack InjuryEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewProcedural DefenseInsurance ClaimBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2012

Thompson v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The defendants, Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, MTA Staten Island Railway, and Tyesha Witt, appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury action as time-barred. The plaintiff's decedent was injured in a railway accident in February 2008 and filed a complaint in March 2009. The defendants argued the action was time-barred under Public Authorities Law § 1276, which mandates a one-year-and-30-day statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Sarah Thompson, argued the statute of limitations was tolled under CPLR 208 due to the decedent's alleged

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTime-barredCPLR 208Insanity TollPublic Authorities LawRailway AccidentAppellate ReviewLegal Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2013

Scholastic Inc. v. Pace Plumbing Corp.

Plaintiff, Scholastic Inc., suffered over $1.5 million in water damage in 2006 due to a broken Victaulic coupling in its Manhattan building, installed by defendant Pace Plumbing Corp. Scholastic's insurer, subrogated to its rights, sued Pace in 2008 for negligence and breach of contract. Pace's answer included a single paragraph listing 16 boilerplate affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations, without separate numbering. The motion court deemed the statute of limitations defense inadequately pleaded but granted summary judgment to Pace on the merits. The appellate court reversed, holding that Pace's statute of limitations defense was indeed inadequately pleaded and prejudiced Scholastic by hindering targeted discovery. The case was remanded to allow Pace to amend its pleading and Scholastic to conduct discovery on the statute of limitations issue, specifically the completion date of Pace's work. The court also raised questions regarding the universal applicability of prior precedent on pleading particularity compared to Official Form 17.

Pleading RequirementsAffirmative DefenseStatute of LimitationsCPLRPrejudiceDiscoverySummary JudgmentRemandAppellate ReviewBoilerplate Defenses
References
26
Case No. ADJ11170818
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

ALICE TORRES vs. SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION/K-MART, CHUBB/ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendants' Petition for Removal and denied their Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found that removal was inappropriate as the WCJ's decision on the statute of limitations addressed a threshold issue, making reconsideration the proper remedy. The defendants' arguments regarding the statute of limitations were rejected, as the employer voluntarily provided medical treatment, extending the limitations period. Furthermore, the court found the statute of limitations was tolled due to the defendant's failure to provide proper notice of the applicant's rights.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Labor Code Section 5410Voluntary medical treatmentTollingNotice requirementsEquitable Estoppel
References
12
Case No. ADJ1058134
Regular
Sep 04, 2025

DENNIS LEMON vs. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS, CIGA for RELIANCE INS. CO., US FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE CO., ZENITH

Applicant Dennis Lemon sought reconsideration of a WCJ's "Findings and Order" that barred his claim due to the statute of limitations. He contended that the WCJ misapplied the burden of proof, as the statute of limitations is the defendant's responsibility, and that the statute was tolled due to the defendant's failure to notify him of his claim rights. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the statute of limitations. The matter has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including the determination of the date of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Burden of ProofTollingReynoldsNotice of ClaimCumulative TraumaDate of Injury
References
8
Case No. ADJ9 088743
Regular
Jan 26, 2016

LEO ESTRELLA vs. MILWAUKEE BREWERS, SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS, ACE USA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Leo Estrella's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that his cumulative injury claim against the Milwaukee Brewers and San Francisco Giants was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The Board found that applicant knew or should have known of his right to file a claim more than one year prior to filing, precluding application of the five-year "new and further disability" statute. Applicant's contention that the statute of limitations was tolled due to lack of knowledge was rejected, as the evidence indicated he was aware of the industrial causation of his injuries by 2009. One commissioner dissented, arguing the date of injury should be 2013 and that defendants failed to prove applicant's knowledge of his rights or the statute of limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Labor Code Section 5410New and Further DisabilityTollingDate of InjuryIndustrial CausationProfessional Baseball Player
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 3,832 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