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 17, 2011

Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions, Inc. v. Essex Insurance

Plaintiff Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions commenced a declaratory judgment action against Defendant Essex Insurance Company, seeking an order to defend and indemnify Avrio in a personal injury action. Essex filed a motion to dismiss, which was converted to a motion for summary judgment. The court addressed two main exclusions: the Completed Operations Exclusion and the Contractual Liability Exclusion. The court found a potentiality of coverage under the Completed Operations Exclusion due to ambiguities in the term "intended use" and unresolved factual issues regarding the completion of work, denying summary judgment on this ground. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Essex regarding the Contractual Liability Exclusion, as the subcontract did not qualify as an "insured contract" under the policy's specific definition in effect at the time of the incident, and Avrio was presumed to have agreed to these terms. The case will proceed to an evidentiary hearing on the Completed Operations Exclusion.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContractual Liability ExclusionCompleted Operations ExclusionInsurance Policy InterpretationChoice of LawMaryland Contract LawFederal Civil ProcedureDuty to Defend
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation ("Fox") and its branch manager, Leila J. Goldstein, were found guilty of criminal contempt for violating a 1951 consent decree from United States v. Loew’s Inc. The decree enjoined Fox from "block booking" films, a practice where the right to exhibit one film is conditioned upon licensing others. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found overwhelming evidence that Goldstein, acting within the scope of her authority, willfully and repeatedly violated this order by coercing exhibitors into licensing less desirable films before more popular ones. The court also found Fox criminally liable for Goldstein's managerial conduct. Sentencing for both defendants was scheduled for December 7, 1988.

Criminal ContemptBlock BookingConsent Decree ViolationMotion Picture IndustrySherman ActAntitrust LawCorporate Criminal LiabilityWillful ViolationManagerial Employee ConductFilm Distribution
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lindsey v. County of Erie

The plaintiff, Ms. Lindsey, an employee of Ciminelli Construction Company, was injured at a worksite on March 21, 2000, and subsequently sought both Labor Law benefits and workers' compensation. After workers' compensation benefits were suspended due to alleged misrepresentation, Ms. Lindsey filed a motion seeking to compel Travelers Insurance Company, the compensation carrier, to produce surveillance videotapes prior to further Workers' Compensation Board proceedings. Travelers Insurance Company argued that such discovery would violate administrative rules; however, the court found that CPLR 3101 (i) was controlling in the civil action. The court further determined that Travelers, despite not being a direct party to the Labor Law action, created the surveillance tapes for its overall defense of claims against its insured, making them discoverable. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, ordering Travelers Insurance Company to immediately deliver all surveillance tapes to the plaintiff's counsel.

Discovery MotionSurveillance VideotapesWorkers' CompensationLabor LawCPLR 3101(i)Insurance Carrier LiabilityAdministrative RulesCivil ProcedureEmployer LiabilityNonparty Discovery
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. ADJ3923408
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

Andrea Seyfried vs. Compass Films, Inc., National Surety Company/Fireman's Fund, Power Payroll, Inc., California Insurance Guarantee Association for Legion Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury while employed by both Power Payroll (general employer) and Compass Films (special employer). Power Payroll was insured by Legion Insurance, whose obligations are now handled by CIGA. Compass Films was insured by Fireman's Fund. The Board rescinded the prior order finding Power Payroll as the sole employer and returned the case for proceedings to determine the respective liabilities of CIGA and Fireman's Fund. CIGA is not liable if Fireman's Fund policy constitutes "other insurance" available to the applicant.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentPayroll servicesFilm industryInsurance Guarantee AssociationInsurer insolvencySpecial employer controlPayroll companyProduction manager
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yash Raj Films (USA), Inc. v. Akhtar (In Re Akhtar)

Yash Raj Films (USA), Inc. (

Copyright InfringementNondischargeabilityBankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(6)Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentWillful and Malicious InjuryPreliminary InjunctionCivil ContemptStatutory DamagesChapter 7
References
38
Case No. 13 Civ. 1297 (JPO)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2014

Duffey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

This case revolves around Todd Duffey, an actor who portrayed a character in the movie *Office Space*, suing Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Running Press. Duffey alleged false endorsement under the Lanham Act and breach of contract, claiming unauthorized use of his image on 'Box of Flair' merchandise. The court, presided over by District Judge J. Paul Oetken, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The decision was based on the interpretation of Duffey's Day Player Agreement, which was found to unambiguously grant 'all rights throughout the universe' to his performance, including its use for commercial purposes like merchandise. Applying Texas contract law, the court concluded that the defendants' use of Duffey's image was permissible, leading to the dismissal of all his claims.

Intellectual PropertyContract DisputeFalse EndorsementLanham ActDay Player AgreementMerchandising RightsActor RightsFilm IndustryTexas Contract LawChoice of Law
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1992

Jones v. Utilities Painting Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant, Consolidated Edison Co., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order had granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to include a cause of action for future medical surveillance costs and emotional distress against Consolidated Edison Co. The appellate court reversed the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion. The court found that the cause of action was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, citing several prior cases as precedent.

Medical Surveillance CostsEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Amendment of ComplaintAppealReversal of OrderMotion DeniedThird-Party DefendantSupreme CourtNew York Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ518435
Regular
Apr 20, 2010

Alphonso Durazo vs. PPG INDUSTRIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge, particularly regarding the applicant's credibility. Sub-rosa surveillance films and medical evaluations by QMEs demonstrated that the applicant made multiple false statements about his disability and complaints, leading to a plea of no contest to workers' compensation fraud. The applicant's award of future medical treatment for his heel was based on a finding of bruising, not the extent of disability he claimed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationWCJ credibilitysub-rosa filmsdisabilitysubjective complaintsindustrial injurywarehouse workerPAK truckTemporary Total Disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General of the United States

Plaintiffs, the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) and Socialist Workers Party (SWP), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from conducting surveillance at the YSA's national convention. The organizations argued that the FBI's intended surveillance, which included recording identities and sharing information for government employment screening, created a substantial chilling effect on their First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The court, presided over by Judge Griesa, found that the proposed surveillance would significantly impair these rights. Despite the government's contention, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' revolutionary rhetoric was theoretical and their record demonstrated non-violence, thus no compelling government interest justified the surveillance. Consequently, the motion for a preliminary injunction was granted.

First Amendment RightsFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechFBI SurveillancePreliminary InjunctionPolitical OrganizationsSocialist Workers PartyYoung Socialist AllianceGovernment OverreachChilling Effect
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 193 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