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

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

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
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

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
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
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. ADJ769558
Regular
Apr 02, 2013

JOSE VILLA-TORRES vs. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE, TRAVELERS DIAMOND BAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that the lien claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The WCAB also dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The Board declined to impose sanctions on either party, though it admonished defendant's counsel for excessive exhibits. The ALJ's report, which detailed the untimeliness of the lien claim and found no basis for tolling the statute of limitations, was adopted and incorporated by the WCAB.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 4903.5Compromise and ReleaseToll Statute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMedical Provider
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v. American Zurich Insurance

This dissenting opinion addresses a dispute over breach of contract counterclaims concerning insurance policies, specifically regarding the application of the statute of limitations. The majority affirmed the Supreme Court's decision that certain counterclaims for debt, arising more than six years prior to the action's commencement, were time-barred. The dissent argues that the cause of action for breach of contract in retrospective premium, adjustable deductible, and claim services policies does not accrue until the insurer demands payment and the insured subsequently refuses. It contends that the contractual obligation to pay is contingent upon a demand, thus starting the statute of limitations period from the refusal date, not merely when the right to demand payment first arises. The dissent would have found that none of the defendants' counterclaims were barred by the statute of limitations.

statute of limitationsbreach of contractinsurance lawcontract interpretationretrospective premiumsadjustable deductiblesaccrual of cause of actiondemand for paymentdissenting opinionappellate review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2006

Hughes v. LaSalle Bank, N.A.

Plaintiffs Dion, Hal, and Holly Hughes, beneficiaries of the Hughes Trust, sued LaSalle Bank, N.A., and its affiliates (ABN-AMRO entities, LSCM) in federal court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. Their claims stemmed from LaSalle's 1993 conversion of trust assets into the underperforming Rembrandt Funds, managed by an affiliate, which allegedly resulted in excessive fees and adverse tax consequences. Plaintiffs moved for class certification and summary judgment, while defendants sought to dismiss the complaint based on statute of limitations and the plaintiffs' consent or ratification. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the claims of Dion and Hal Hughes were time-barred by Texas's four-year statute of limitations. Holly Hughes's claims for monetary relief were also time-barred by New York's three-year statute of limitations, and her equitable claims were dismissed due to her consent to and ratification of the investment conversion, as she had sufficient material information.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentTortious InterferenceStatute of LimitationsChoice of LawClass ActionMotion to DismissTrust LawTrustee LiabilityInvestment Management
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Columbia University in the City of New York

George D. Walker, a former security guard at Columbia University, sued his employer and labor union for various causes of action including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful discharge, age discrimination under New York Human Rights Law, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Walker was mandatorily retired in December 1978 at age 65, under the terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement. A new agreement, signed in July 1979, retroactively extended the mandatory retirement age to 70 as of January 1, 1979. Walker claimed he was unaware of this change until late 1987 or early 1988. The defendants, Columbia University and the Union, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Walker's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court found that a six-month statute of limitations applied to the hybrid § 301/fair representation claim and that Walker should have reasonably known about the alleged breach in 1978 or 1979, given the union's publicized meetings regarding contract negotiations. The court also denied any basis for tolling the statute of limitations, as there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment and plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the complaint, ruling that all of plaintiff's claims were time-barred.

Age DiscriminationWrongful DischargeBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationFederal Labor LawHybrid § 301 Claim
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 5,420 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