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. ADJ9391561 ADJ8266496
Regular
Apr 12, 2019

HENDRIKUS ANTONIUS BENNINK vs. CITY OF FRESNO

This case involves a police officer claiming industrial injuries to multiple body parts, including orthopedic and digestive systems, in addition to previously resolved cardiovascular and hearing claims. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injuries to his neck, upper extremities, back, legs, or digestive system. This decision was based on substantial evidence from Qualified Medical Examiners (QMEs) who concluded these conditions were degenerative and non-industrial. The WCAB found no error in the QMEs' reasoning or the applicant's failure to prove industrial causation for these specific injuries.

ADJ9391561ADJ8266496Industrial injuryCardiovascular systemHearing lossOrthopedic injuryDigestive systemQMESubstantial evidenceCausation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tagare v. NYNEX Network Systems Co.

Plaintiff Neil Tagare filed an action against NYNEX entities and several individuals, alleging discrimination based on color and national origin, retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including Rule 17(a) regarding real party in interest and ripeness for the contract claim, and the applicability of Title VII and HRL to individual defendants. The court denied dismissal for breach of contract against NYNEX Network Systems Company and upheld HRL claims against individual defendants based on aiding and abetting. The court granted dismissal of Title VII claims against individual defendants and partially granted dismissal of the breach of contract claim against other defendants, while denying the motion for a more definite statement.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationColor DiscriminationRetaliationBreach of ContractMotion to DismissTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureIndividual Liability
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Communications Workers of America District 1

The lawsuit, filed by Cablevision Systems against Communications Workers of America District 1 (CWA) and individual defendants, sought to address alleged harassment, trespass, stalking, disorderly conduct, and tortious interference with business relations. These claims arose from the defendants' purported disruption of two private Cablevision events in May 2013, a shareholder meeting and an investors' conference. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, ruling that a corporate entity like Cablevision Systems cannot be considered a "person" for the purpose of bringing statutory claims under the Penal Law sections cited (harassment, stalking, disorderly conduct). Furthermore, the court found the claims for common-law trespass and tortious interference insufficient due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions. Consequently, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed entirely.

Labor DisputeUnion HarassmentCorporate EventsTrespassStalkingDisorderly ConductTortious InterferenceMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionPenal Law Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganthier v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Healthy System

Esther Ganthier sued North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Susan Tobin, GreyStone Staffing, Inc., and Karen Westerlind alleging race and national origin discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy. GreyStone and Westerlind moved to dismiss, while Ganthier cross-moved for leave to amend her complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against GreyStone and Westerlind, finding individuals are not liable under Title VII and GreyStone was not named in the EEOC charge. It also dismissed Section 1981, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy claims due to pleading deficiencies. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state and city human rights laws against the dismissed defendants and denied Ganthier's cross-motion to amend as futile, instructing to amend the caption to reflect only North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and Susan Tobin as defendants.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationConspiracyMotion to DismissLeave to AmendTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 ClaimsFederal Civil Procedure Rules
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2015

In re Barrier Window Systems, Inc.

Barrier Window Systems, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Barrier liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for its installers. Barrier, which transitioned from installing to selling building products and arranging installations via subcontractors, argued it was not a contractor under the Fair Play Act and that its installers were independent contractors. The Board determined that Barrier continued to engage in construction by arranging installations and that the installers did not meet all three criteria of the Fair Play Act's ABC test for independent contractor status. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, thereby upholding Barrier's liability.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorWorker MisclassificationConstruction Industry Fair Play ActLabor LawABC TestEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative AppealStatutory Presumption
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clarke v. LR SYSTEMS

Walter Clarke, a 74-year-old former employee of Favorite Plastics, Inc., filed a products liability action against LR Systems and Lasits Rohline Service, Inc. for injuries sustained in an industrial accident on August 13, 1996. Clarke's right hand was pulled into an SG Granulator 300 machine, resulting in the loss of part of his thumb and injury to three fingers. He alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty, claiming inadequate warnings and a design defect in the grinder. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim, finding Clarke was aware of the danger. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied on the defective design claims, ruling that the expert testimony regarding the feasibility of an interlocked guard was admissible.

Products LiabilityIndustrial AccidentGranulator MachineDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyNip Point HazardV-belt DriveMachine Safety
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Protter v. Nathan's Famous Systems, Inc.

The case involves Erwin Protter and his three fast-food franchise corporations suing Nathan's Famous Systems, Inc. and its officers for fraud and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations. Protter alleged misrepresentations regarding training, profit margins, and the use of IPO funds, alongside omissions of material facts such as hidden costs and sales declines in other franchises, which he claimed induced him to purchase three Nathan's franchises. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, asserting it was time-barred and failed to state a claim. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the RICO claims with prejudice, citing plaintiffs' failure to plead a distinct enterprise from the persons, acquisition injury under §1962(b), and investment injury under §1962(a). Despite finding the allegations regarding another defrauded franchisee, Steven Lenter, potentially sufficient for an "open-ended scheme" to satisfy the pattern of racketeering requirement at the motion to dismiss stage, the specific deficiencies in the other RICO subsections led to their dismissal. Consequently, the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Franchise FraudRICO ViolationsRacketeering ActivityMotion to DismissFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)Fraudulent MisrepresentationInvestment InjuryAcquisition InjuryEnterprise-Person Distinctness
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broder v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

Plaintiff Gerald D. Broder initiated a class action against Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, Inc., alleging breach of contract, violations of New York General Business Law § 349, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. Broder contended that the defendants failed to provide uniform cable service rates and notify customers of discounted "Winter Season" rates, in violation of federal and state statutes. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the referenced statutes were not expressly incorporated into the customer agreement and did not provide a private right of action, thus precluding Broder's claims. Broder's additional common law claims were also dismissed for lacking an independent common law duty. The plaintiff's motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal was consequently denied as moot.

breach of contractdeceptive practicesGeneral Business LawPublic Service Lawcable servicesuniform ratesprivate right of actionclass actionmotion to dismissinterlocutory appeal
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp.

Elfriede Mayer sued Oil Field Systems Corp. (OFS) and Integrated Energy Inc. (Integrated) alleging securities and common law fraud. Mayer, a limited partner in Mark Energy Partnerships (MEP), claimed misallocation of Integrated stock and insufficient disclosure regarding its arbitrary $10/share valuation, which affected partnership payouts. She also asserted misleading statements about an underwriter and stock performance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Mayer was not deceived. The court found that Mayer had actual knowledge of the facts allegedly withheld, including the arbitrary stock valuation and the method of determining payout, through various disclosures provided by OFS and Integrated. Concluding that no deception occurred, a prerequisite for federal securities claims, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, also declining jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Securities FraudCommon Law FraudLimited PartnershipStock ValuationSummary JudgmentMisallocation of SharesDisclosure RequirementsMaterial FactFiduciary DutyFederal Securities Laws
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,228 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