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

Privatera v. Yellow Cab Co.

A 75-year-old clerk for Yellow Cab Company was assaulted by a co-employee, Cross, after an incident where the clerk referred two women looking for drivers to other idle employees. Cross wrongly believed the clerk had used inappropriate language, leading to a physical altercation that injured the clerk's hip. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed an award, determining the initial interaction was work-related, establishing a nexus between the employment and the assault. The employer appealed, arguing it was a personal dispute. The court upheld the Board's finding, stating that substantial evidence supported the work-related nexus, making the injury compensable.

Workers' CompensationWorkplace AssaultCourse of EmploymentPersonal AnimosityWork-Related InjurySubstantial EvidenceCompensabilityNexus to EmploymentCo-employee DisputeHip Injury
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Judicial Dissolution of Good Co. General Store Cooperative

Petitioners Diane Mohney and Laura Ferris sought judicial dissolution of Good Company General Store Cooperative under Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, or alternatively, an accounting and judgment for their capital accounts. The court denied the petition for dissolution, finding petitioners lacked standing as their membership shares were automatically transferred upon termination of employment according to the cooperative's by-laws and Cooperative Corporations Law. However, the court granted the petitioners' alternative request, ordering Good Company to account for and pay the value of each petitioner’s capital account within 60 days, in compliance with its By-Laws. All other requests for judgment were denied without prejudice.

Worker CooperativeJudicial DissolutionBusiness Corporation Law § 1104-aCooperative Corporations LawMembership Share RedemptionInternal Capital AccountsBy-Laws DisputeCorporate StandingEmployment TerminationMember Rights
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1978

Israeli v. Fatima Cab Corp.

The Fatima Cab Corp. appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 15, 1978, which found it in contempt for failing to comply with an arbitrator's award directing no-fault payments to the petitioner. The appellate court reversed the contempt judgment, citing the record's lack of basis for the contempt finding and absence of findings regarding willful actions by Fatima Cab Corp. The proceeding was remitted to Special Term for a new hearing to address these deficiencies, specifically considering CPLR enforcement provisions for money judgments or fiduciary duties.

Contempt of CourtNo-Fault PaymentsArbitrator's AwardJudgment EnforcementCPLRWorkers' Compensation BenefitsWillful DefaultAppellate ReviewKings CountyRemand
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plains/Anadarko-P Ltd. Partnership v. Coopers & Lybrand

The case involves three limited partnerships suing Coopers & Lybrand over allegedly false financial statements audited by Coopers for Trans-Western Exploration, Inc. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the first claim concerning fraud by accountants, finding the pleading sufficient. However, the second claim, mirroring the first with additions of aiding and abetting and fiduciary duty, was dismissed as redundant. Five pendent state law claims were also dismissed due to discretionary pendent jurisdiction. Finally, an eighth claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was dismissed for insufficiency, as the auditing engagement did not satisfy the statutory requirements for conducting an enterprise or a pattern of racketeering. The plaintiffs were ordered to serve and file an amended complaint.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b)Securities fraudSection 10(b) claimAiding and abettingFiduciary dutyPendent jurisdictionState law claimsRICO ActAuditing engagement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1996

Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp.

Juan Lanpont, an auto mechanic, was injured by a lurching taxi owned by Savvas Cab Corp. and driven by its president, Sepyashvily, who was also Lanpont's supervisor. Lanpont sued Savvas and Sepyashvily. Defendants initially failed to assert a Workers' Compensation exclusivity defense. After a jury awarded Lanpont $698,251, defendants sought to amend their answer to include this defense, but were denied by lower courts. The appellate court reversed, finding it an abuse of discretion to deny the amendment. The court held that sufficient facts supported the potential merit of the Workers' Compensation defense and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice. The judgment for the plaintiff was vacated, and the case was remanded to determine the Workers' Compensation defense. Other aspects, including the admissibility of medical evidence, serious injury, causation, and damages amount (contingent on the Workers' Compensation defense outcome), were affirmed.

Workers' Compensation defenseamendment of pleadingsexclusivity defenseserious injury thresholdproximate causeappellate reviewremandmedical evidence admissibilityaffirmative defensejury award
References
17
Case No. CV-24-1199
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Tawon Cooper

Claimant Tawon Cooper sustained work-related injuries and was awarded schedule loss of use (SLU) benefits. The central dispute involved the calculation of counsel fees for claimant's attorney, Grey & Grey, LLP, specifically whether fees should be based on the gross SLU award or the net SLU award after deducting employer's advance wage payments. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled for fees based on the net SLU award, a decision upheld by the full Board after review. Claimant's attorney appealed this determination to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (2) (c) to mandate the deduction of all "previous payments," including wages, before calculating counsel fees, and upheld the Board's discretion to make counsel fees a lien against the claimant's net SLU award.

Workers' Compensation Law § 24Counsel Fees CalculationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lien against AwardEmployer ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWage AdvanceNet SLUGross SLU
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stalter v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services

Plaintiff James D. Stalter, Jr. sued the Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Rockland County (BOCES) under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York Executive Law, alleging discrimination due to his cerebral palsy and speech impediment. BOCES moved for summary judgment, arguing Stalter was not disabled, did not suffer an adverse employment decision, and his claims were untimely filed with the EEOC. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, denied BOCES's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on all key arguments. The court determined that Stalter's inability to speak constituted a substantial limitation of a major life activity, and there was sufficient evidence that BOCES regarded him as disabled. Furthermore, the court found factual disputes regarding whether Stalter was denied overtime and a shift change, and if the continuing violation doctrine or equitable tolling applied to his EEOC complaint's timeliness.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Disability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentCerebral PalsySpeech ImpairmentEmployment DiscriminationAdverse Employment ActionEEOCStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Durant v. North Country Adirondack Cooperative Insurance

This appellate case concerns an insurer's duty to defend. Plaintiffs, farm owners including Robert Durant, sought reimbursement from North Country Adirondack Cooperative Insurance Company after the insurer denied coverage for a negligence action brought by Wayne Ashley, who was injured on their farm. The insurer cited a farm employee exclusion in their policy. Although the Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the insurer, the appellate court determined that the insurer's duty to defend was established by the complaint. The court found the insurer failed to provide conclusive evidence that the farm employee exclusion applied, thus implying a reversal of the lower court's decision regarding the duty to defend.

Insurance LawDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionFarm EmployeeNegligence ActionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationBurden of ProofExtrinsic Evidence
References
17
Case No. SFO 492433 SFO 490100
Regular
Aug 09, 2007

AMAL KHALEK vs. YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES (SCRMA)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The applicant sought to overturn a prior order approving a compromise and release, arguing a lack of mental competency at the time of settlement. However, the petition was filed outside the statutory time limit for reconsideration, rendering it jurisdictionally deficient.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAmal KhalekYellow Cab CooperativeSouthern California Risk Management ServicesSCRMAPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJmental competenceuntimely petition
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 262 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