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
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
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. 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

People v. Perico

This case addresses the defendants' Perico and Andriano's motion to dismiss an information. The defendants argued that the prosecution for Workers' Compensation Law §§ 50 and 52 violations was untimely, having been filed two years and two days after the alleged misdemeanor, exceeding the two-year statute of limitations for misdemeanors. They also contended the information was insufficient due to the absence of certified Workers' Compensation Board awards. The People opposed, arguing the statute of limitations defense was waived for not being raised within pretrial motion deadlines. The court held that the Statute of Limitations defense is a jurisdictional right, waivable only at trial or upon a guilty plea, not automatically by CPL 255.20's time limits. Furthermore, the court found the information fatally defective due to the lack of prima facie evidence. Consequently, the information against both defendants was dismissed.

Criminal ProcedureStatute of LimitationsDismissalAccusatory InstrumentInformation InsufficiencyWaiverJurisdictional RightMisdemeanorPretrial MotionsPlea of Guilty
References
11
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

Roberts v. Gross

The case involves an appeal by a podiatrist (defendant) from an order that dismissed their affirmative defense based on the Statute of Limitations for medical malpractice. The core issue is the interpretation of “medical malpractice” as used in CPLR 214-a, specifically whether it applies to malpractice actions against podiatrists. The court examines other statutes enacted by chapter 109 of the Laws of 1975, which defined “medical malpractice” in the context of licensed physicians and hospitals. Based on these related statutes, the court concludes that CPLR 214-a's abbreviated Statute of Limitations applies only to physicians and hospitals, not to podiatrists. Therefore, the order dismissing the defendant's affirmative defense was affirmed.

MalpracticePodiatryStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214-aStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentMedical Malpractice InsuranceProfessional RegulationAppellate ReviewJudicial District
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1994

Speroni v. Mid-Island Hospital

In a medical malpractice and wrongful death action, the defendants appealed an order regarding their motion to amend their answer to assert a Workers' Compensation Law defense and for summary judgment, and the plaintiff's cross-motion to strike their Statute of Limitations defenses. The Supreme Court properly struck the Statute of Limitations defenses, as the service was timely and jurisdiction was properly obtained. However, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants' motion to amend their answer to include the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to the action. The appellate court modified the order, granting the branch of the motion to amend the answer and remitting the matter for further proceedings, specifically staying the summary judgment disposition pending a Workers' Compensation Board determination.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAmendment of AnswerAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureNassau County Supreme Court
References
7
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. ADJ8292814, ADJ8859836, ADJ8292825
Regular
Oct 29, 2019

JO MARIE JENNINGS vs. PASADENA CITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the statute of limitations defense raised by the defendant, Pasadena City College. The Board found that the defendant failed to prove that Anthem Blue Cross, as a lien claimant, had sufficient knowledge of the claim to trigger the statute of limitations. Consequently, the Board affirmed the original decision, but amended the findings of fact to explicitly state that Anthem Blue Cross's lien is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPasadena City CollegeKeenan & AssociatesPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseBurden of ProofLabor Code § 5705Jack Morgan M.D.
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,295 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