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
Dec 29, 2014

City of New York v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

The City and State of New York sued FedEx Ground, alleging the knowing delivery of unstamped cigarettes from 2005 to 2012, which violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA), the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and New York Public Health Law § 1399-ii, and constituted a public nuisance. FedEx Ground filed a motion to dismiss these claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss the CCTA, RICO, and RICO conspiracy claims, finding sufficient grounds for aggregation of sales, pattern of predicate acts, participation in the enterprise, injury to business or property, and proximate causation. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the New York Public Health Law claim, ruling that the 2013 amendment, which would grant the City and State enforcement authority, did not apply retroactively. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the public nuisance claim, concluding that it primarily involved alleged tax evasion, which is already subject to comprehensive regulation, rather than unauthorized shipments to minors.

Contraband CigarettesCigarette TraffickingRICO ActPublic Health LawPublic NuisanceMotion to DismissTax EvasionStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationProximate Cause
References
42
Case No. 06 Civ. 7784
Regular Panel Decision

National City Golf Finance v. Higher Ground Country Club Management Co.

Defendant and third-party plaintiff Higher Ground asserted claims against third-party defendant ProLink for breach of warranty and for indemnification and contribution. ProLink moved to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint or compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause and a forum selection clause. Higher Ground argued the agreement was unsigned and unenforceable under the statute of frauds and that claims were outside the scope. The court, applying the Federal Arbitration Act, found an agreement to arbitrate existed due to Higher Ground's conduct, and the claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration clause. ProLink’s motion was granted, and proceedings on the Third-Party Complaint were stayed pending arbitration in Maricopa County, Arizona.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Contract LawBreach of WarrantyIndemnificationContributionForum Selection ClauseStatute of FraudsAgreement to ArbitrateThird-Party Complaint
References
46
Case No. Index No. 157783/18, 596011/19; Appeal No. 5535; Case No. 2024-06221
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2026

Tejeda v. 57th & 6th Ground LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The plaintiff, Juan Miguel Presinal Tejeda, was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims after being injured due to a scaffold lacking guardrails. The Supreme Court also granted landlords' motion for summary judgment on their cross-claims for contractual and common-law indemnification and breach of contract against the plaintiff's employer and third-party defendants. The appellate court found that the employer's insurance policies were non-compliant with lease requirements, creating a gap in coverage and resulting in damages to the landlords. The court concluded that the violation of Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries and affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Scaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationBreach of ContractInsurance Coverage DisputePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyThird-Party ClaimsDuty to Provide Safe Workplace
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1996

Eymer v. Ground Round, Inc.

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Eymer and Patrick Lappin sued The Ground Round, Inc. and its Severance Pay Plan, asserting claims under ERISA for denied severance pay, breach of contract for unpaid vacation days, and age discrimination for Eymer. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on multiple claims. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on Claims 3 and 8 but denied it for the remaining ERISA severance pay, breach of contract for vacation pay, and age discrimination claims. The court found material issues of fact existed regarding the arbitrary and capricious nature of the severance pay denial, disputes over vacation pay policy application, and a potential discriminatory animus concerning age, warranting further proceedings.

ERISAAge DiscriminationBreach of ContractSeverance PayVacation PaySummary Judgment MotionConflict of Interest PolicyEmployment LawEmployee BenefitsArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2007

Kuwaiti Engineering Group v. Consortium of International Consultants, LLC

The case involved a Kuwaiti corporation, as plaintiff, seeking to enforce a contract and alleging tortious interference with its contract rights against defendants Safege Consulting Engineers (French) and Consortium of International Consultants, LLC (Delaware). The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds. The court found New York an inconvenient forum because the consulting work was primarily performed in Kuwait, negotiations were only partly in New York, and the alleged interference occurred outside New York. The decision was conditioned upon the defendants' consent to jurisdiction in Kuwait and France. The court affirmed the dismissal but denied Safege's request for sanctions, deeming the plaintiff's appeal not frivolous.

forum non conveniensKuwaitFrancecontract disputetortious interferenceinternational lawjurisdictiondismissalappellate courtNew York Supreme Court
References
6
Case No. ADJ20165742
Regular
Jul 18, 2025

DEBRA SILVEIRA vs. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INCORPORATED

Applicant Debra Silveira sought reconsideration of an April 29, 2025 Findings of Fact and Order, which deemed a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel valid despite being requested by defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Incorporated, with an incorrect claim number. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior decision, and substituted new findings. The Board ruled that strict compliance with Administrative Director Rule 30 regarding complete and correct claim numbers for QME panel requests is required to ensure due process and prevent conflicting or overlapping panels. Consequently, the defendant's panel (7773036) was deemed invalid, and the applicant's panel (7775940) was declared valid.

QME panel validityincorrect claim numberAD Rule 30due processadministrative law judgePetition for Reconsiderationremoval standardDWC Medical Unitprocedural defectinadvertent error
References
11
Case No. ADJ20067702
Regular
Jun 13, 2025

NICOLE TRIPLETT vs. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC., SEDGWICK CONCORD

Applicant Nicole Triplett sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order that reduced her attorney's fees from 15% to 10% of a $15,000 settlement with FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. The Appeals Board granted the petition, finding that the WCJ did not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning for the fee reduction and failed to give the petitioner due process by not allowing an opportunity to present evidence regarding the value of legal services. Consequently, the March 13, 2025 order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney's FeesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ OrderFee Disclosure StatementLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemDue Process
References
12
Case No. ADJ608253 (ANA 0404124)
Regular
Mar 09, 2009

JAIME O. HERNANDEZ vs. ADVANTAGE GROUND TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Jaime O. Hernandez versus Advantage Ground Transportation and State Compensation Insurance Fund. This decision allows the Board more time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented. The reconsideration is necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record for a just and reasoned final decision. Pending further proceedings, all communications should be directed to the Board's P.O. Box in San Francisco.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdvantage Ground TransportationState Compensation Insurance FundStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesDecision After ReconsiderationFurther proceedingsService by mail
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Business MacHines Corp. v. HARRYSSON

International Business Machines (IBM) filed suit against former senior executive Anders Harrysson to enforce a forfeiture clause related to his incentive stock options. Harrysson, a Swedish national, left IBM and, within six months of exercising his options, began working for a competitor, Sun Microsystems. IBM sought to reclaim the gains from his stock options. Harrysson moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing that a U.S. judgment would not be enforceable in Sweden, where all his assets are located. The court denied the defendant's motion, ruling that Harrysson had previously agreed to exclusive jurisdiction in New York courts and that IBM was willing to accept the risk of enforceability. The court noted that the balance of public and private interest factors favored retaining U.S. jurisdiction, especially given the potential for Harrysson to acquire U.S. assets in the future.

Stock OptionsForfeiture ClauseForum Non ConveniensJurisdictionContract EnforcementEmployment AgreementRestrictive CovenantInternational DisputeChoice of ForumExecutive Compensation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,269 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