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

Jara v. Strong Steel Door, Inc.

Carlos Huerta, an undocumented worker, sued Strong Steel Door, Inc., and David Wei, claiming they failed to pay him the prevailing wage required by public works contracts. Strong Steel Door had terminated Huerta's employment after discovering he provided false documentation. Strong Steel Door sought summary judgment, arguing the employment contract was illegal due to the false documentation and that Huerta was precluded from recovery by the doctrine of 'unclean hands.' The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was affirmed. The appellate court held that neither the contract nor the work performed was illegal, and Strong Steel Door was not injured by Huerta's false documentation as they received the bargained-for labor. Additionally, Strong Steel Door failed to meet its burden of proof regarding payment of the prevailing wage.

breach of contractsummary judgmentprevailing wageundocumented workerillegal contract defenseunclean hands doctrineImmigration Reform and Control Actemployment lawappellate reviewcontract enforceability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2012

Strong v. City of New York

This case concerns an appeal regarding spoliation sanctions against the City of New York for the negligent destruction of a radio run audio recording. The recording was relevant to the City's 'emergency operation' affirmative defense in a personal injury action involving plaintiffs Kevin Strong, Miguel Carrasquillo, and De Fa Chen. Despite the City being on notice of potential litigation, the recording was automatically deleted after 180 days. The court found that this constituted spoliation under New York common law. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's order, reinstating a limited preclusion against the City from introducing testimony about the audio recording's contents and ordered the production of unredacted police accident reports and affidavits of compliance.

Spoliation SanctionsEvidence DestructionRadio Run RecordingEmergency Operation DefenseVehicle and Traffic LawNegligenceDiscovery DisputePreclusion OrderAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strong v. Suffolk County Board of Elections

Michael Strong, an independent candidate for Congress, filed a pro se complaint against the Suffolk County Board of Elections commissioners, alleging that his ballot placement for the November 8, 1994 election violated his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. Strong claimed the ballot design was arbitrary and discriminatory, putting him at a disadvantage. The court previously denied his motion for a preliminary injunction. In this decision, addressing the defendants' motion to dismiss, the court ruled that there is no constitutional right to a favorable ballot position, only to ballot access. Finding that the defendants' actions were within their discretion under New York Election Law and did not constitute a constitutional violation, the court granted the motion to dismiss Strong's complaint in its entirety and denied leave to amend.

Ballot PlacementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentSection 1983Election LawPro Se LitigantMotion to DismissSuffolk CountyIndependent CandidateVoter Rights
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeGabriel v. Strong Place Realty, LLC

This case concerns motions for reargument and renewal following a workplace accident. Plaintiff Cesar DeGabriel was injured when an I beam fell on his leg at a construction site. Plaintiff sued defendants Rockledge Scaffold Corp., Strongrew Realty, LLC, and Strong Place Realty, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). Defendant Rockledge moved to reargue the partial denial of its summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Plaintiff cross-moved to reargue and renew the dismissal of his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and the court's finding regarding Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2). The court denied Rockledge's motion, finding issues of fact regarding negligent stacking of I beams under Labor Law § 200. The court also denied plaintiff's motions, ruling that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the I beam was stationary, and Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) did not apply, suggesting § 23-2.1 was more relevant. Both the defendant's and plaintiff's motions were ultimately denied.

Workplace accidentLabor Law claimsSummary judgment motionReargumentRenewal motionFalling object injuryConstruction site safetyCommon-law negligenceIndustrial Code violationsPremises liability
References
11
Case No. ADJ8732541
Regular
Jul 22, 2014

DENNIS STRONG vs. APPLIED BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves Dennis Strong's Petition for Removal, which was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was primarily due to the petition being filed on June 2, 2014, which was outside the 20-day deadline from the May 1, 2014 decision, rendering it untimely. Furthermore, even if timely, the petition lacked the required showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm needed for removal. The Board also noted that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy once a final decision issues.

Petition for RemovalUntimelyPersonal ServiceDecision DateFiling Deadline20-day limitCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10843Strom v. WCABSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
1
Case No. ADJ6644379 ADJ9878351 ADJ7615307 ADJ6644975
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

MALCOLM STRONG vs. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct clerical errors in attorney fee calculations for applicant Malcolm Strong's permanent disability awards from a specific and cumulative injury to his cervical spine and upper extremities. The Board affirmed the original findings regarding the nature and extent of the injuries and the permanent disability ratings assigned by the WCJ. Applicant's contention that the WCJ erred by using the Combined Value Table to combine impairment ratings was rejected, as the WCJ's application of the AMA Guides was consistent with the Agreed Medical Examiner's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerRichard D. ScheinbergM.D.Permanent Disability Rating ScheduleAMA GuidesCombined Values Tablecervical spine
References
12
Case No. 07-CV-6149L
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2010

Johnson v. THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER

Plaintiffs Keith Johnson, M.D., and Laura Schmidt, R.N., filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital. They alleged defendants defrauded the government by submitting false claims for anesthesiology services under Medicare/Medicaid, claiming physician supervision when it was absent. Johnson also alleged retaliatory discharge for reporting violations, and Schmidt claimed retaliation for refusing to alter medical records. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead fraud with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Johnson cross-moved to amend the complaint to add claims of libel per se and prima facie tort against Dr. Lustik. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege that any fraudulent bills were actually presented to Medicare/Medicaid. The retaliation claims were also dismissed because the complaints were not made in furtherance of a qui tam action. Johnson's motion to amend was denied as frivolous and in bad faith. Defendants' request for sanctions was denied without prejudice.

False Claims ActQui TamMedicare FraudMedicaid FraudRetaliatory DischargePleading StandardsRule 9(b)Motion to DismissLeave to AmendLibel
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tyler v. Liz Claiborne, Inc.

The lead plaintiff, James S. Metz, initiated a putative class action against Liz Claiborne, Inc. and its executives, Trudy F. Sullivan and William L. McComb, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The claims centered on fraudulent misrepresentations regarding LIZ’s business relationships with Macy’s and J.C. Penney between January and April 2007. Defendants sought to dismiss the action, arguing a failure to adequately plead scienter—the intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. The court granted the motion, concluding that the plaintiff's allegations of motive and opportunity, as well as strong circumstantial evidence, were insufficient to establish a strong inference of scienter, leading to the dismissal of the action with prejudice.

Securities Exchange ActSection 10(b)Rule 10b-5Section 20(a)Class ActionSecurities FraudMotion to DismissScienterMotive and OpportunityCircumstantial Evidence
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 1994

People v. Strong

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Albany County, convicting them of rape in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and robbery in the second degree. The conviction stemmed from an incident where the defendant allegedly tied up George Giametta and a woman, stole their belongings, and raped the woman. On appeal, the defendant contended that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to initial conflicting identification statements from the victims, who first identified Raymond Allen but later identified the defendant in a lineup. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the jury had ample opportunity to assess witness credibility and that its determination was not against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was affirmed.

Criminal LawRape First DegreeRobbery First DegreeRobbery Second DegreeJury VerdictAppealIdentification TestimonyWitness CredibilityWeight of EvidenceLineup Identification
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cartella v. Margaret Woodbury Strong Museum

The court reversed an order, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff, who fell from an elevated plank or scaffolding while repairing a building ceiling. The plank lacked guardrails and safety devices, which was found to be a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The decision emphasizes that the failure to provide necessary safety devices, regardless of the scaffold's height, constitutes a violation of this labor law section.

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment GrantedSafety Device FailureElevated WorkConstruction SafetyAppellate ReviewWorker FallGuardrail AbsenceLiability
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 267 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