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. 2019-04-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2020

West, Amber v. The Balanced Canine Training Academy

Amber West, an employee of The Balanced Canine Training Academy (BCTA), sought workers' compensation benefits for a low-back injury sustained when two large dogs knocked her over a doghouse at work. She also requested psychiatric care and additional temporary disability benefits, alleging an inaccurate average weekly wage calculation. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Cookeville, presided over by Judge Robert Durham, held an expedited hearing. The Court found Ms. West likely to prove her low-back injury primarily arose out of and in the course of her employment, supported by medical evidence from neurosurgeon Joseph Jestus. However, her requests for psychiatric care were denied due to the lack of an order from an authorized physician. Furthermore, the Court denied her claim for additional temporary disability benefits, determining her average weekly wage based on the employer's account and documented evidence, which was lower than Ms. West claimed but still within the minimum compensation rate she had already received.

Workers' CompensationLow-Back InjurySciaticaPsychiatric CareAverage Weekly Wage DisputeExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsDog AttackMedical TreatmentCausation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.

Plaintiffs Ellen M. Sullivan and Mark Gross filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., alleging a vertical resale price maintenance scheme that violated antitrust laws and New York’s Consumer Protection Act. They claimed to have suffered economic injury due to inflated shoe prices. Defendant New Balance moved to dismiss the complaint. District Judge Sweet granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate direct injury from purchasing from conspiring retailers. The court also dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice, granting plaintiffs leave to refile the complaint within 30 days, provided they limit the class to those who purchased from conspiring retailers.

AntitrustClass Action LawsuitResale Price MaintenanceSherman Act Section 1Clayton Act Section 4Consumer StandingMotion to DismissEconomic InjuryPrice Fixing SchemeIndirect Purchaser Standing
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re J.P. Morgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation

Plaintiffs alleged that the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan implemented by JPMorgan Chase violated ERISA by being age discriminatory and by failing to provide adequate notice of reduced benefit accruals after converting to a cash balance plan. Defendants moved to dismiss all remaining counts. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the age discrimination claim (Count I) and the notice claims (Counts IV-VI), interpreting ERISA's "rate of benefit accrual" to refer to the employee's retirement benefit, which is detrimentally affected for older workers in cash balance plans. The court found that the plan conversion could lead to a significant reduction in benefit accrual, requiring notice. Counts II and III, related to back-loading and forfeiture claims, were dismissed as they had been withdrawn by the plaintiffs.

ERISAAge DiscriminationCash Balance PlansDefined Benefit PlansDefined Contribution PlansBenefit AccrualStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNotice RequirementsSummary Plan Description
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2003

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Trio Asbestos Removal Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, concerning an action to recover unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. The plaintiff, an insurance fund, sought premiums from the defendant for policy periods between November 1993 and December 1996. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that claims for estimated premiums for the periods from November 1993 to November 1996 were barred by the six-year statute of limitations, CPLR 213 (2). The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, agreeing that the claims for unpaid estimated premiums for those specific periods were time-barred. However, the court found that claims for final audit premiums issued after July 30, 1996, were not time-barred. Additionally, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, dismissing the defendant's counterclaim, on the grounds that such counterclaims against the State Insurance Fund are only cognizable in the Court of Claims.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceUnpaid PremiumsStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCounterclaimInstallment PaymentsEstimated PremiumsAudit AdjustmentAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2015

CGM Construction, Inc. v. Sydor

Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract over renovations to a historical building's front porch, seeking an unpaid balance for work completed. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging poor workmanship and overcharging. Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiff for the balance owed, but reduced damages and awarded defendant costs related to defective porch decking and stair risers. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the finding that plaintiff was not responsible for defects resulting from defendant's design specifications. However, it reversed the part of the Supreme Court's order that held plaintiff liable for the porch surface decking costs, finding plaintiff followed defendant's instructions regarding the material. The issue of attorney's fees was deemed not ripe for review.

Breach of ContractConstruction DisputeDesign SpecificationPerformance SpecificationAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialRenovation ProjectProperty Owner LiabilityContractor LiabilityWorkmanship Defects
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2013

Xuedan Wang v. Hearst Corp.

Plaintiffs, former unpaid interns at Hearst Corporation magazines, moved for partial summary judgment and class certification, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) regarding minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping. They sought to certify a class of unpaid interns at Hearst Magazines in New York between February 2006 and the date of final judgment. The Court discussed the applicable legal standards for defining an "employee" under FLSA, considering the "immediate advantage" standard, the "totality of circumstances" balancing test, and the Department of Labor's six-factor test. The Court found genuine disputes of material fact for summary judgment purposes, particularly concerning the nature of the internships, benefits to interns, supervision, and impediment to Hearst's operations. Consequently, both motions were denied, as commonality and predominance requirements for class certification were not met due to the highly individualized nature of the internships across Hearst's various magazines and departments.

Unpaid InternsFLSANYLLWage and HourClass ActionSummary JudgmentClass CertificationEmployee MisclassificationIntern CompensationLabor Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1998

Ballard v. Community Home Care Referral Service, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning unpaid overtime wages and class action certification. The court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff, a home health care aide, was not entitled to 1.5 times her regular hourly wage for overtime. This decision was based on the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) companion services exemption, which defines overtime compensation for such roles. Furthermore, the presence of a liquidated damages claim precluded class action relief under CPLR 901 (b).

Overtime WagesHome Health Care AideFLSA ExemptionClass ActionAffirmative DefensesNew York Labor LawWage OrderUnpaid WagesCPLR 90129 USC 207
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2005

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Concord Messenger Service, Inc.

The New York County Supreme Court's order, which granted the plaintiff summary judgment and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss in an action for unpaid workers' compensation premiums, was unanimously affirmed. The plaintiff successfully presented documentary evidence, including the insurance application, policy, audit reports, and statements, establishing a prima facie case. The court rejected the defendant's arguments concerning unproven policy terms, which were improperly raised, and conjectural claims about premium calculation. Additionally, the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss on grounds of "gross laches" was denied due to the absence of a CPLR 3216 notice. The defendant's unsubstantiated demand for discovery, which had been delayed for years, was deemed insufficient to prevent summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PremiumsAppellate AffirmationDocumentary EvidenceLaches DefenseCPLR 3216 NoticeInsurance Policy AuditPrima Facie CaseNew York LawUnpaid Premiums
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Country Carting Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, entered a judgment on August 5, 1998, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for unpaid workers’ compensation premiums totaling $399,833.88. This judgment was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The plaintiff presented unrebutted business records, including the insurance application, audit worksheets, and invoices, which sufficiently established a prima facie case for the judgment. The defendants' request for disclosure regarding the plaintiff's assumptions and methodologies was rejected due to their prior inactivity and failure to explain discrepancies in the bills. The appellate court found the defendants' remaining arguments unpersuasive.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsUnpaid PremiumsBusiness RecordsPrima Facie EvidenceDisclosureAppellate ReviewAffirmed JudgmentSupreme CourtNew York County
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romney v. Lin

This opinion addresses an action to collect unpaid contributions owed by Goodee Fashions, Inc. to four union benefit funds, totaling $70,647.17. After an initial judgment against Goodee Fashions proved uncollectible, the plaintiff, representing the union benefit funds, sued Alan Lin, a principal shareholder, under New York Bus. Corp. Law § 630. This state law holds the ten largest shareholders jointly and severally liable for debts to employees, including benefit funds. Defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing preemption by ERISA and LMRA. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 630 is preempted by ERISA. Consequently, the claim for $70,647.17 was dismissed, except for a $598.27 portion related to the Sportswear Industry Trust Fund, which was deemed not an ERISA fund.

ERISA PreemptionLMRAShareholder LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsEmployee Benefit PlansCollective BargainingState Law PreemptionFederal JurisdictionCorporate DebtDismissal
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,063 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