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. 2016 NY Slip Op 08049 [144 AD3d 1099]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2016

Ingvarsdottir v. Gaines, Gruner, Ponzini & Novick, LLP

Helga Ingvarsdottir sued Gaines, Gruner, Ponzini & Novick, LLP for legal malpractice, alleging failure to provide timely notice for an unpaid wages claim under Business Corporation Law § 630 (a). The Supreme Court denied the law firm's motion to dismiss the complaint. On reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its original decision and granted the third-party defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed, finding that the 180-day notice period under Business Corporation Law § 630 (a) had expired before the law firm was retained. The court also determined that statutory insanity or equitable tolling doctrines did not apply to the condition precedent. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting the law firm's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Legal MalpracticeBusiness Corporation LawCPLR 3211(a) Motion to DismissCondition PrecedentEquitable TollingInsanity TollUnpaid Wages ClaimH-1B Visa IssuesAttorney-Client RelationshipAppellate Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russell v. Gaines

Justice Wesley dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) should bar the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The dissent contends that defendant Gaines, as an executive employee of Gaines Electrical and owner of the property where the injury occurred, was acting within the scope of his employment and was a coemployee of the plaintiff. Citing precedent like Heritage v Van Patten, the dissent emphasizes that Gaines had indistinguishable duties for safety precautions, and the plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits. Therefore, the dissent concludes that coemployee immunity should apply, prohibiting the majority's outcome.

Workers' Compensation LawLabor LawCoemployee ImmunityScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityCorporate EmployerExecutive EmployeeDissenting OpinionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Ward

Petitioners, inmates in the New York State Department of Correctional Services, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the release of their medical records to Prisoners' Legal Services of New York, Inc. Initially, the request covered multiple petitioners, but compliance was granted for all except Lawrence Gaines. Gaines had authorized a law student, Barbara Schneider, to obtain his records, but the request was denied on the grounds that only attorneys or certified social workers could receive such records. The respondents argued that law students are not considered "attorneys" under relevant regulations and releasing records to them could pose liability issues. The court acknowledged the need to protect respondents and ruled that requests should be signed or countersigned by a licensed attorney from Prisoners' Legal Services. Consequently, Lawrence Gaines' petition was denied.

inmatesmedical recordscorrectional facilitieslegal assistancelaw studentsattorney representationArticle 78 proceedingaccess to informationlegal ethicsliability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Camara R.

This appeal concerns the dismissal of a neglect petition against parents whose infant son, Antonio, twice suffered from nonorganic failure to thrive. Antonio showed significant weight gain during hospitalizations but lost weight at home, despite prior parental instructions. Evidence presented included the parents' resistance to medical advice, unsanitary home conditions, and the father's substance abuse. The Family Court initially found insufficient evidence of neglect, but the appellate court reversed, concluding that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of both direct neglect of Antonio and derivative neglect of his siblings. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings.

NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Failure to ThriveChild WelfareParental MisconductAppellate ReviewPrima Facie EvidenceChild Protective ServicesMedical NeglectSubstance Abuse
References
3
Case No. ADJ3845272 (SRO 0103733) ADJ1335789 (SRO 0121654)
Regular
Jun 22, 2012

ROBERT VIALE vs. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

This case involves a dispute over an attorney's fee where the applicant's attorney sought $90,000 from a $638,982 settlement. The WCJ initially limited the fee, excluding amounts used for Medicare Set Aside (MSA) funding from the calculation based on a prior panel decision. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's order, and awarded the full $90,000 fee. The Board found the WCJ gave undue weight to a non-binding panel decision and insufficient weight to Labor Code and WCAB rules mandating consideration of responsibility, care, time, and results obtained. They concluded the full fee was reasonable given the successful settlement for the applicant, who gained control of their treatment and significant cash compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJCompromise and ReleaseMedicare Set Aside AccountAnnuityAttorney FeeLabor Code Section 4903(a)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gaines v. City of New York

Janie Gaines, a wheelchair user, was injured on a bus owned by the City of New York but operated by the NYCTA when her wheelchair was not secured, leading to her being thrown to the floor. She sued the City, alleging liability based on Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 due to its ownership of the bus. The City moved for dismissal or summary judgment, arguing it did not operate or control the bus, which was leased to the NYCTA. The court re-examined its prior order that had granted the City's motion, acknowledging it overlooked the plaintiff's opposition. Upon reargument, the court denied the City's motion for summary judgment, emphasizing the strong public policy of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 to hold vehicle owners liable and finding no legislative exception for the City in this context.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388Owner LiabilityPublic AuthoritySummary JudgmentMotion to DismissLease AgreementTransit AuthorityWheelchair AccidentBus AccidentNegligence
References
33
Case No. ADJ12261614
Regular
Dec 11, 2020

Melanie Gaines vs. Beardsley School District

This case concerns Melanie Gaines' workers' compensation claim against Beardsley School District for a right foot injury sustained in April 2018. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the finding of injury AOE/COE but deferring the determination of temporary disability from August 5, 2019, onward. The Board found that the claimant's testimony and the QME's report constituted substantial evidence for the injury, and the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations due to the employer not proving prejudice from the delayed notice. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record on temporary disability and attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdjudication NumberFindings of FactOrderPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationInjury AOE/COERight Foot InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityStatute of Limitations
References
9
Case No. ADJ15875626
Regular
Jun 30, 2025

Evyette Gaines vs. Riverside University Health System

Defendant sought reconsideration of the April 11, 2025 Findings, Award, and Orders (FA&O), where the WCJ found the reporting of PQME, Dr. Albert Simpkins, to be substantial medical evidence, with the exception of apportionment. Applicant, Evyette Gaines, was found to have sustained injury AOE/COE to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and psyche, resulting in 38% permanent disability. Defendant contended that Dr. Simpkins' apportionment findings constituted substantial medical evidence and that the WCJ misapplied legal precedents. After considering the petition and the WCJ's report, the Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersQualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEAlbert SimpkinsApportionmentSubstantial Medical EvidenceAOE/COECervical Spine
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gaines v. New York City Transit Authority

Shawn Gaines, a pro se plaintiff and former train operator for the New York City Transit Authority (TA), filed two lawsuits. One alleged disability discrimination and retaliation by the TA under the ADA, stemming from a policy change that rendered him medically unqualified due to a hearing impairment and his subsequent termination for refusing reclassification. The second lawsuit accused the Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 (Local 100) of retaliation for filing discrimination charges against the TA, citing multiple adjournments of his grievance arbitration. The District Court granted summary judgment for both defendants, ruling that the TA's policy was a legitimate safety measure, not discriminatory or retaliatory, and that Local 100's actions did not constitute adverse union action or evidence of retaliatory motive.

ADAEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationDisabilityHearing ImpairmentSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic SafetyTrain OperatorNew York City Transit Authority
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Little v. Gaines Electrical Contracting, Inc.

Claimant, an electrician apprentice, suffered a ventral hernia at work and informed his employer. The employer's president, David Gaines, allegedly advised him to take a layoff and use health insurance instead of filing a workers' compensation claim to avoid hurting the company's insurance. After surgery and medical clearance, the claimant attempted to return to work but was told no work was available. Upon discovering the employer used an independent contractor for work he could have done, the claimant filed for workers' compensation and a discrimination complaint under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, leading to his formal termination. The Workers' Compensation Board found the employer guilty of retaliatory discrimination, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal, citing substantial evidence of a causal nexus between the claimant's efforts to obtain benefits and the employer's retaliatory conduct. The court found no basis to disturb the Board's findings or its denial of the employer's request to reopen the hearing.

Workers' Compensation DiscriminationRetaliationWrongful TerminationWorkplace Injury ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 120Board Decision ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCausal NexusCredibility AssessmentDenial of Motion to Reopen
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 632 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