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

In Re Schatz Fed. Bearings Co., Inc.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) sought to withdraw from the Creditors’ Committee in the bankruptcy estate of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., Inc. The Creditors’ Committee opposed the withdrawal, aiming to preserve its appeal of an earlier ruling that deemed the UAW eligible to serve. The court granted the UAW's application to withdraw, citing that a creditor's willingness to serve is a key factor in committee composition and that compelling service is not justified when the creditor no longer has an interest in the case, especially since the debtor's business has ceased and its assets were liquidated. The court also noted the UAW's pension rights were guaranteed by ERISA and it had negotiated a new contract with the asset buyer, making its position on the committee academic.

BankruptcyCreditors' CommitteeUnion RepresentationMotion to WithdrawMootness DoctrineERISADebtor LiquidationJudicial DiscretionAdequate RepresentationVoluntary Service
References
2
Case No. 99 Civ. 0793(RCC)
Regular Panel Decision

Fezzani v. BEAR, STEARNS & COMPANY INC.

This Opinion & Order addresses motions to dismiss in a complex securities fraud case stemming from a "boiler room" scheme by A.R. Baron & Co., which defrauded customers of millions. Plaintiffs, former Baron customers, sought recovery from multiple entities and individuals, including Bear Stearns, other broker-dealers, financiers, and the Apollo Defendants, alleging federal securities fraud, RICO violations, and various New York common law claims like fraud, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. The court, presided over by District Judge Paul A. Crotty, granted motions to dismiss against most defendants, citing failures to meet heightened pleading standards under Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA, and lack of duty to disclose for clearing brokers. However, the court denied dismissal for market manipulation, civil conspiracy to defraud, and aiding and abetting fraud claims against the Apollo Defendants, specifically for plaintiff James Bailey, allowing those specific claims to proceed.

Securities FraudMarket ManipulationRICO ViolationsCommon Law FraudCivil ConspiracyAiding and Abetting FraudBroker-Dealer MisconductBoiler Room SchemePleading StandardsStatute of Limitations
References
44
Case No. 99-CV-1607
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2000

Gardner v. Honest Weight Food Cooperative, Inc.

Plaintiff Leslie Gardner sued Honest Weight Food Cooperative, Inc., William Zeitlow, Maryanne Winslow, and Michael Toye for employment discrimination based on Jewish ethnicity, religion, and gender under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as state law claims under N.Y.Exec.Law § 296 and defamation. Defendants moved to dismiss the federal claims due to the untimely filing of the Title VII complaint and argued that at-will employment could not form a contractual basis for the § 1981 claim. Defendants also sought to dismiss state law claims, including defamation. The court denied all motions to dismiss, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the timely receipt of the Right-To-Sue letter for the Title VII claims and deferring the § 1981 at-will employment issue pending a Second Circuit decision. The court also found the state law defamation claim sufficiently pleaded.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Section 1981N.Y. Executive Law § 296DefamationSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissTimelinessRight-To-Sue Letter
References
51
Case No. ADJ7022627
Regular
Feb 08, 2013

WARRICK HOLDMAN vs. CHICAGO BEARS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Warrick Holdman, a former Chicago Bears player, and his insurer, Travelers Insurance, regarding a cumulative industrial injury claim. A prior decision awarded 89% permanent disability and specific treatment limitations. The defendants petitioned for reconsideration after the judge retired. Crucially, a compromise and release agreement has since been filed. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decisions, and returned the case for a new judge to review the proposed settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAmended Findings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryCumulative InjuryProfessional AthletePermanent DisabilityLife Pension
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01895 [237 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2025

Mederos v. 147 Amsterdam LLC

This case involves a construction site accident where Vinicio A. Familia Sena was injured after falling from a collapsed scaffold. Paul Mederos, as guardian, sued for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, New York County, granted Mederos's motion for summary judgment on liability against Lucky Bear & Company and Amsterdam RMR LLC. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding sufficient evidence that Vinicio fell from the scaffold due to inadequate safety devices. The Court rejected defendants' arguments that Vinicio's alleged medical event or intoxication constituted a sole proximate cause, reiterating that comparative negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityProximate CauseComparative NegligenceAppellate ReviewElevation-Related HazardSafe Place to Work
References
8
Case No. ADJ7560127
Regular
May 20, 2013

MICHAEL RICHARDSON vs. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., CHICAGO BEARS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, OAKLAND RAIDERS, FREMONT INDEMNITY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ's determination of the date of injury as February 2, 1989, was not supported by substantial evidence. Medical evidence and applicant's own statements suggest a cumulative trauma injury sustained from January 1, 1989, through December 31, 1989, with the San Francisco 49ers, not solely attributable to the Chicago Bears on February 2, 1989. The Board also directed the WCJ to address the outstanding child support lien in the new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardProfessional Football PlayerIndustrial InjuryThoracic SpineLumbar SpineRight ShoulderLeft KneeHeadachesDate of InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
0
Case No. STK 188722
Regular
Dec 19, 2008

RICHARD JAMES vs. KRC HOLDINGS, INC. dba DSS COMPANY and CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION on behalf of RELAINCE INSURANCE, in liquidation, KRC HOLDINGS, INC. dba DSS COMPANY and ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied CIGA's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original award. The WCJ correctly determined that while applicant's 1999 knee injury and 2001 ankle injury shared some overlapping disability factors, the ankle injury's unique limitation to half-time weight-bearing constituted a separate compensable disability. Therefore, CIGA remains liable for the 1999 injury's permanent disability, and Zurich for the 2001 injury's.

CIGAReliance InsuranceZurich North AmericaKRC HoldingsDSS Companypermanent disabilityoverlappsyche injuryright kneeleft ankle
References
6
Case No. ADJ10272888
Regular
Apr 30, 2019

JOSE SEQUEN vs. JOANNE LESLIE & WALTER JOHNSON, STATE FARM, administered by SEDGWICK; JOEL GOMEZ LAWN CARE & TREE SERVICE; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration in the case of Jose Sequen. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and reasoning, giving great weight to the judge's credibility determinations based on observing witness demeanor. The employer bears the burden of proving an injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Board affirmed that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, referencing case law defining the broad scope of compensable activities.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibility determinationsburden of proofdeviation from job dutiesunauthorized departurescope of activitiesacquiescenceimplied authorizationcompensable injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bertelle v. New York City Transit Authority

Plaintiffs John Bertelle and Debra Bertelle appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 22, 2004. The judgment was in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, dismissing the complaint against John Bertelle. The appeal by Debra Bertelle was dismissed on the grounds that she was not aggrieved by the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, as testimony supported the conclusion that John Bertelle was not standing on an inadequate safety device. Additionally, the trial court's decision to conduct a bifurcated trial was deemed a proper exercise of discretion because the plaintiff's injuries did not have a bearing on the issue of liability.

Personal InjuryAppellate ReviewJury Verdict AffirmationWeight of EvidenceBifurcated TrialPremises LiabilityPlaintiff AppealDefendant VictoryCredibility AssessmentProcedural Ruling
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Minucci

Defendant, a scaffolding erector, constructed a scaffold whose weight exceeded the load-bearing capacity of the preexisting beams, leading to its collapse, killing five workers and seriously injuring four others. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the second degree, admitting he designed the scaffold himself without hiring a licensed professional engineer and without knowing or calculating its load capacities, despite being aware of potential dangers. His subsequent motion to vacate the judgment, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, was denied. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the denial, finding the guilty plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and counsel's performance competent. The court concluded that counsel was thoroughly familiar with the law of reckless manslaughter and that his professional judgment regarding the evidence was reasonable.

Manslaughter Second DegreeScaffold CollapseReckless ConstructionGuilty PleaIneffective Assistance of CounselCPL 440.10 MotionAppellate AffirmationCriminal Procedure LawNew York LawConstruction Safety
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 674 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