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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01050 [191 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2021

Matter of Faith A. M. (Faith M.)

The mother, Faith M., appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which found her to have derivatively neglected her child, Faith A.M. This finding stemmed from a prior neglect determination in May 2014 concerning her other children due to excessive corporal punishment, which the court deemed proximate in time to the current proceeding. The evidence presented, including statements from siblings, testimony from a school counselor, and observations of injuries, corroborated the ongoing use of excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's assessment of the mother's credibility, finding her denials incredible, was supported by the record, reinforced by her guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to similar allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, as the mother failed to provide evidence that the circumstances leading to the neglect finding no longer existed.

Child NeglectDerivative NeglectCorporal PunishmentFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewParental JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceCredibilityPrior FindingsRisk of Harm
References
11
Case No. 02 Civ. 3288(DLC), 03 Civ. 0167, 03 Civ. 0168, 03 Civ. 0169, 03 Civ. 0170, 03 Civ. 0171, 03 Civ. 0337, 03 Civ. 0890, 03 Civ. 0891, 03 Civ. 0892, 03 Civ. 1283, 03 Civ. 1284, 03 Civ. 2839, 03 Civ. 3859, 03 Civ. 3860, 03 Civ. 4499, 03 Civ. 4500, 03 Civ. 6226, 03 Civ. 6227, 03 Civ. 6592, 03 Civ. 7297, 03 Civ. 7806, 03 Civ. 8269, 03 Civ. 8270, 03 Civ. 8271, 03 Civ. 8923, 03 Civ. 8924, 03 Civ. 9168, 03 Civ. 9400, 03 Civ. 9401, 03 Civ. 9402, 03 Civ. 9823, 03 Civ. 9824
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2004

In Re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

This case addresses motions for reconsideration and dismissal in a multi-district litigation stemming from the WorldCom, Inc. financial collapse. The court affirmed that Section 13 of the Securities Act, not the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's Section 804, dictates the statute of limitations for Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims, as these actions were deliberately pleaded as strict liability/negligence rather than fraud. It also held that the 'American Pipe' tolling doctrine does not apply to individual actions filed independently before class certification, leading to many time-barred claims. Furthermore, the court upheld the dismissal of a Section 12(a)(2) claim regarding a December 2000 private placement, affirming that such placements fall outside the scope of Section 12(a)(2). Requests for leave to amend complaints were largely denied due to lack of diligence and bad faith in strategic pleading.

Securities LitigationClass ActionStatute of LimitationsSarbanes-Oxley ActSecurities Act of 1933American Pipe Tolling DoctrineRule 15(c) Relation-BackPrivate PlacementMotion to DismissMotion for Reconsideration
References
56
Case No. ADJ11080934
Regular
Oct 28, 2025

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. CREAM OF THE CROP AG SERVICE, INC.; CA FARM MANAGEMENT, INC.

The applicant, Juan Martinez, sought reconsideration of a prior decision that reversed a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order imposing sanctions against the defendant for alleged frivolous tactics. The Appeals Board originally found insufficient evidence of bad-faith conduct by the defendant, Cream of the Crop AG Service, Inc. and CA Farm Management, Inc. In this petition, the applicant sought clarification on the standard of review and claimed certain issues were not addressed. The Board denied the applicant's petition, reiterating its finding that the defendant's actions did not constitute bad-faith litigation tactics under Labor Code section 5813, and confirmed that the responsibility for pursuing discovery, such as a neuropsychological evaluation recommended by Dr. Bhatia in 2018, did not rest solely on the defendant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5813SanctionsAttorneys' FeesFrivolous TacticsBad Faith ConductNeuropsychology EvaluationAdditional PanelsReconsideration Proceedings
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. Workers' Compensation Board

A probationary employee's termination by the Workers' Compensation Board was upheld on appeal. The employee initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, claiming the dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith, but the Supreme Court dismissed the application. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that probationary employees can be terminated without explanation or a hearing unless the discharge is for constitutionally impermissible reasons, legal violations, or bad faith. The petitioner failed to demonstrate bad faith or that the termination was unrelated to job performance, as evidence showed deficiencies in understanding Workers' Compensation Law, lack of improvement after training, and improper conduct.

Employment TerminationProbationary EmployeeUnsatisfactory PerformanceBad FaithCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardCivil Service LawAdministrative LawPublic Employment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beer v. John Hancock Life Insurance

Plaintiff Yoram Beer sued various insurance companies to recover disability and life insurance benefits after suffering a heart attack, claiming total disability. Defendants denied the claims, leading to the plaintiff initiating litigation. The plaintiff later moved to dismiss the entire action with prejudice and without costs, while the defendants cross-moved for attorneys' fees, alleging the plaintiff's litigation was commenced in bad faith, and sought costs. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for dismissal with prejudice, reasoning that such a dismissal freed defendants from relitigation without causing them prejudice. It denied the defendants' request for attorneys' fees, finding insufficient evidence of bad faith or a meritless claim, but allowed them to seek allowable costs, excluding those related to a prior stipulated dismissal.

Voluntary DismissalDismissal with PrejudiceAttorneys' FeesCostsBad Faith LitigationRule 41(a)(2) MotionRule 54(d) CostsPrevailing PartyDisability Insurance BenefitsLife Insurance Policy
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raff v. Maggio

David Raff, an arbitrator, initiated an action against Maggio, an employer, to recover unpaid arbitration fees. Maggio had refused to pay his half of the fees stemming from a labor dispute arbitration, despite previous court affirmations of the arbitration award and advice from his own counsel to pay. Raff sought the arbitration fee, interest, and attorney's fees, contending that Maggio's prolonged refusal constituted bad faith. While Maggio eventually conceded his liability for the arbitration fee, interest, and court costs after his appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, he continued to dispute the payment of attorney's fees. The court determined that Maggio's initial and persistent refusal to pay the arbitration fee, based on a meritless defense, amounted to bad faith conduct. Consequently, the court partially granted Raff's motion for summary judgment, awarding him the arbitration fee, interest, court filing costs, and attorney's fees incurred up to the point Maggio filed his answer, marking the cessation of his bad faith actions concerning the fee itself. Maggio's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.

Arbitrator FeesLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentAttorneys' FeesBad Faith LitigationAmerican Rule (Attorneys' Fees)Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration Award EnforcementFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Contractual Obligation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burlew v. American Mutual Insurance

Bernice Burlew, an employee of Voplex Corporation, filed a lawsuit against her workers' compensation insurance carrier for alleged negligent and bad faith delay in authorizing necessary medical treatment for a work-related injury. Mrs. Burlew claimed her physician advised surgery shortly after a 1979 work-related illness, but the carrier withheld authorization for four to five months, leading to claims of emotional distress and fraudulent conduct. The defendant carrier sought dismissal, arguing the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusivity provision and that no independent tort cause of action was established. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a breach of an insurance contract does not, in itself, create a tort claim, and the alleged conduct did not meet the high standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Consequently, the complaint, including the bad faith claim and requests for punitive damages, was dismissed, as the court found plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable cause of action in tort.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance Carrier LiabilityBad Faith ClaimIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressExclusivity ProvisionBreach of ContractMedical Treatment AuthorizationPersonal InjuryNegligenceAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. ADJ16728100; ADJ16728102
Regular
Oct 06, 2025

MARCO ORTIZ vs. AZTECA LANDSCAPE INC.; CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY dba BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

Cost petitioner, Tony Barriere Interpreting Service, Inc., sought reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on June 16, 2025. The petitioner contended that discovery issues were relevant and that the defendant engaged in bad faith by unreasonably delaying payment. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's recommendation, finding that the defendant's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith and that the underlying bill had been paid with a self-imposed penalty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderCost PetitionerTony Barriere Interpreting ServiceBad Faith ActionsUnreasonable DelayLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10545(h)Sanctions
References
9
Case No. 2018 NYSlipOp 08059
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. A.O Smith Water Prods. Co.

This case involves an appeal in the New York City Asbestos Litigation where Mary Juni, as administratrix of Arthur H. Juni, Jr.'s estate, sued Ford Motor Company. Mr. Juni, who died of mesothelioma, was an auto mechanic exposed to asbestos from Ford vehicles. The core issue was whether the evidence sufficiently established that Ford's conduct was a proximate cause of Mr. Juni's injuries, particularly concerning the toxicity of asbestos in friction products after being subjected to high temperatures during manufacturing and use. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the evidence insufficient to establish proximate causation under existing legal standards, specifically a missing link in the proof regarding the toxicity of the altered asbestos. Concurring opinions further elaborated on the failure to establish a connection between Ford's products and the decedent's exposure or the general causation related to altered chrysotile asbestos. A dissenting opinion argued that the jury's verdict, finding Ford 49% liable, was supported by sufficient evidence and not 'utterly irrational,' highlighting the evidence of Mr. Juni's exposure to asbestos-laden dust from Ford vehicle parts and Ford's internal recognition of asbestos dangers.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaProximate CauseProduct LiabilityToxicologyFriction ProductsChrysotile AsbestosExpert TestimonyJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,635 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