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
Jan 14, 1998

Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

This class action was commenced by retired Curtiss-Wright employees, represented by the United Steelworkers of America, against Curtiss-Wright Corporation. Plaintiffs alleged that Curtiss-Wright breached its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and violated ERISA by unilaterally terminating retiree health insurance benefits in May 1987, seeking damages and a permanent injunction for lifetime benefits. The central legal question revolved around whether these retiree health insurance benefits were vested for the retirees' lives. Initially, the court denied cross-motions for summary judgment, finding the relevant contract language ambiguous, and a jury subsequently found a breach of the CBA by Curtiss-Wright. However, the court later re-examined the documents in light of new Second Circuit precedent, which provided a narrower standard for interpreting CBAs and insurance plan documents concerning vesting. The court ultimately concluded that the CBA and insurance plan documents unambiguously established that benefits were tied to the specific durational clauses of the agreements and were terminable upon their expiration. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA was denied as duplicative. Consequently, all of the plaintiffs' motions for judgment, including for a permanent injunction, were denied.

Employee Retirement Income Security ActLabor Management Relations ActRetiree Health BenefitsVested BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementInsurance AgreementFiduciary DutySummary Plan DescriptionSummary Annual ReportContract Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wright v. Colvin

Plaintiff Kimmey Wright sought judicial review of a final decision by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin, denying her applications for Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Judge William F. Kuntz, II presided over the motions for judgment on the pleadings from both parties. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had previously denied Wright's applications, finding she was not disabled under the five-step SSA process, determining she had severe impairments but an adequate residual functional capacity (RFC) for certain jobs. Wright challenged the ALJ's decision, arguing a violation of the treating physician rule regarding Dr. Lubin's testimony and that the vocational expert's (VE) testimony did not reflect her RFC. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion and granted the Commissioner's, upholding the ALJ's determination that the ALJ provided sufficient reasons to discount Dr. Lubin's opinion and that the VE's testimony was based on a correct RFC.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleVocational Expert TestimonyResidual Functional CapacitySchizophreniaMajor Depressive DisorderPersonality Disorder
References
26
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04445
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2024

Argueta v. Hall & Wright, LLC

The plaintiff, Jose Daniel Santiago Argueta, a carpenter, sustained injuries after falling from a sloped roof during a home renovation project. He subsequently sued the property owner, 520X Residential, LLC, and the construction manager, Hall and Wright, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to both defendants, dismissing the Labor Law causes of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, ruling that Hall and Wright, LLC, lacked the necessary supervisory control to be considered a statutory agent, and 520X Residential, LLC, qualified for the homeowner's exemption, as the work was for residential use and they did not direct or control the work.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentHomeowner ExemptionStatutory AgentSupervisory ControlElevation-Related HazardAppellate ReviewRoofing Work
References
28
Case No. 00 Civ. 7635(GBD)(FM)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2004

Wright v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Plaintiff Rodney Wright filed an employment discrimination action against his former employer, Goldman, Sachs & Company, and several employees, alleging disparate treatment, denial of promotion, and constructive discharge based on race under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas recommended granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. District Judge George B. Daniels adopted the Report and Recommendation, finding no clear error. The court concluded that Wright failed to establish a prima facie case for failure-to-promote, constructive discharge, or disparate treatment, and that his Section 1981 and 1983 claims also lacked merit. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

employment discriminationsummary judgmentdisparate treatmentconstructive dischargeTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983race discriminationmotion to dismissfederal court
References
53
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03320 [42 NY3d 708]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

People v. Wright

Freddie T. Wright appealed his conviction, challenging the denial of his Batson challenge to the People's peremptory strikes on prospective jurors and his motion to suppress identification testimony. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding record support for the race-neutral reasons provided for the strikes. The Court also concluded that the showup identification procedure used by the police was not unduly suggestive given its close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime. The dissent raised concerns regarding the trial court's Batson analysis and the suggestiveness of the identification procedures.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationshowup identificationunduly suggestivedue processcriminal procedureappellate reviewtrial court discretion
References
45
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06233
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Wright v. Pennings

The plaintiff, Brian P. Wright, sustained personal injuries when an unsecured 20-foot extension ladder fell and struck him while a coworker was installing wiring. The ladder slipped on a rubber mat covered in cow manure and hay. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding the plaintiff established prima facie that the unsecured ladder violated Labor Law § 240 (1) and proximately caused his injuries. The court also found the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200 claims, and the common-law negligence claim.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseElevation-Related RiskIndustrial CodeNegligence
References
25
Case No. CV-23-0342
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Tyler Wright

Claimant Tyler Wright appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision granting him a 45% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a right knee injury sustained in 2018. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a 51.667% SLU, but the Board modified this to 45%, crediting the initial opinions of orthopedic physician Gregg Nicandri and independent medical examiner Martin Gingras. Both physicians initially assessed a 45% SLU based on claimant's range of motion deficits, consistent with the 2018 New York State Guidelines for Determining Impairment. Although Nicandri later revised his assessment to 52.5% by proportionally adjusting values, and claimant's attorney argued for 51.667%, the Board found that a 45% SLU was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the guidelines, particularly section 7.4, which outlines how to assess combined flexion and extension deficits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

schedule loss of useknee injuryrange of motionpermanency evaluationworkers' compensation guidelinesmedical opinionindependent medical examinationAppellate Divisionsubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wright v. Guarinello

Rodney Wright, a direct care worker for Heartshare Human Services, was terminated for alleged physical and psychological abuse of a developmentally disabled patient. Wright denied the charges, alleging coercion and identifying other attackers. The court denied his requests for reinstatement and back pay, upholding the 'at-will' employment doctrine prevalent in New York. However, finding the charges stigmatizing and publicly disclosed, the court granted Wright a due process name-clearing hearing by the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD), citing the doctrine of compelled self-publication. The court reasoned that the defamatory grounds for termination, if honestly disclosed, would severely hinder Wright's future employability due to state reporting requirements of patient abuse. The Attorney-General's motion to dismiss was denied.

DefamationCompelled Self-PublicationAt-Will EmploymentDue ProcessName-Clearing HearingPatient AbuseEmployee TerminationPublic DisclosureEmployabilityState Regulations
References
15
Case No. CV-23-0342
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2024

Matter of Wright v. Elmer W. Davis Inc.

Claimant Tyler Wright sustained a work-related right knee injury in 2018, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Following surgery, initial medical evaluations by his orthopedic physician, Dr. Gregg Nicandri, and an independent medical examiner, Martin Gingras, both determined a 45% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the right leg based on range of motion deficits. Dr. Nicandri later revised his assessment to 52.5% SLU by proportionally adjusting calculations according to the 2018 New York State Guidelines. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits based on a 51.667% SLU, but the Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, crediting the initial 45% SLU opinions from both physicians. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the 2018 guidelines.

Schedule Loss of UseKnee InjuryRange of Motion DeficitsMedical GuidelinesWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyIndependent Medical ExaminationMaximum Medical ImprovementOrthopedic Physician
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Wright

The Debtors, including Leon Wright and several corporate entities, appealed a United States Bankruptcy Court order from February 11, 1998. The Debtors had sought an order to prevent future testimony and discovery compliance by Leon Wright from waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. The District Court, presided over by Judge Barrington D. Parker, Jr., dismissed the appeal. The Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to issue an advisory opinion regarding the legal effect of unspecified future testimony, deeming the request to be based on contingent and hypothetical events. The decision referenced Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and various precedents on justiciability.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationProtective OrderBankruptcy AppealFederal JurisdictionAdvisory OpinionJusticiabilityDebtorsCreditorsWaiver of Privilege
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 49 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