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

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1999

Doolittle v. County of Broome

Petitioner, a former correction officer, appealed the dismissal of her CPLR article 78 application challenging a determination that granted General Municipal Law § 207-c disability benefits for a limited period. The Supreme Court dismissed her application as untimely, finding it was filed beyond the four-month Statute of Limitations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the petition was time-barred as the attorney received notice of the determination more than four months before filing. The court also noted that, even on the merits, the Hearing Officer's determination of limited benefits for an eight-month period, based on a work-related psychological injury, was supported by sufficient evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsStatute of LimitationsCPLR Article 78Administrative LawProcedural DismissalJudicial ReviewMental HealthWorkplace StressCorrection Officer
References
6
Case No. ADJ8730224
Regular
Dec 15, 2016

SERGIO BERMUDEZ vs. CERRITOS AUTO REPAIR CENTER, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Tri County Medical Group's (TCMG) petition for reconsideration of a finding that its lien claim was barred by the 18-month limitation in Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board majority held that because TCMG's last date of service was January 29, 2015, after the July 1, 2013 effective date for the shorter period, the 18-month limit applied. TCMG's lien was filed over 18 months after this last date of service and was therefore untimely. A dissenting commissioner argued that for continuously provided services crossing the July 1, 2013 date, the three-year limit should apply to avoid requiring multiple lien filings.

Labor Code Section 4903.5(a)lien claim18-month limitation periodthree-year limitation perioddate services were providedlast date of servicecontinuously provided servicespetition for reconsiderationdenial of lienWCJ report
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gray v. Myren

The case concerns an appeal regarding a personal injury action filed by a longshoreman against a vessel owner. The longshoreman had received workers' compensation awards for injuries sustained in 1972. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the personal injury action was time-barred under 33 U.S.C. § 933(b), which mandates commencing such actions within six months of accepting a compensation award. Specifically, the defendant claimed a May 8, 1973 "Memorandum of Informal Conference" constituted an award. The appellate court, adopting the Second Circuit's interpretation, ruled that an interim award for temporary total disability does not trigger the six-month statute of limitations. The court held that the limitation period begins only when the injured worker knows the full extent of their compensation, which occurred on May 6, 1974, with the award for permanent partial disability. Consequently, the plaintiff's action, filed within six months of the latter date, was timely. The court modified the lower court's order to deny the defendant leave to amend their answer, finding the proposed statute of limitations defense legally insufficient, and otherwise affirmed.

LongshoremenHarbor WorkersStatute of LimitationsPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionInterim AwardPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewFederal Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerber v. Amalgamated Transit Union Division 580

The plaintiff was fired by CNY Centro, Inc. and filed a grievance which the defendant union failed to arbitrate within the stipulated time. The plaintiff sued the union alleging negligence, breach of collective bargaining agreement, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The union moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption and a six-month statute of limitations. The court held that it had jurisdiction over unfair representation claims in state courts. It applied the six-month federal statute of limitations to the negligence and breach of contract claims, finding them time-barred. However, the court applied New York's six-year statute of limitations for fraudulent misrepresentation, finding that claim timely.

Unfair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsFederal PreemptionLabor DisputesGrievance ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementFraudulent MisrepresentationState Court JurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. ADJ8904484
Regular
Mar 13, 2017

MIGUEL CERDA vs. LIVING OPPORTUNITIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a finding that their lien was barred by the statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board determined that the 18-month filing deadline applied because the claimant's last date of service was after July 1, 2013, and the lien was filed approximately twenty months after that date. The Board rejected the claimant's argument that a three-year limit should apply due to continuous service before and after July 1, 2013, citing precedent establishing the last date of service as the relevant date for the statute of limitations. Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that the three-year period should apply to continuous service before and after the July 1, 2013 date to avoid requiring multiple lien filings.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)statute of limitationslien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardadministrative law judgetimely filingcontinuous serviceslast date of service
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2004

Foote v. Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership

Glenn A. Foote, Jr., an employee, sustained injuries when a wood chip stacker collapsed at the Lyonsdale Cogeneration Facility. He and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 against the facility owners (Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership and Moose River Energy, Inc.), the stacker designer (American Bin & Conveyor), and the procurer (Wolf & Associates). The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment to Lyonsdale and Wolf, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Lyonsdale and the negligence claim against Wolf. On cross-appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the injury resulted from the structure's collapse rather than the failure of a safety device. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claim against Wolf due to the absence of a duty to the plaintiff, and found a question of fact existed regarding Lyonsdale's supervisory control, thus denying summary judgment to Lyonsdale on other claims.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceElevated Work SiteScaffold LawWood Chip StackerDesign DefectSupervisory ControlContractual Obligation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Winters v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiffs Roger Winters and David Burt sued General Motors for wrongful layoff after being promoted from unionized hourly employees to non-union salaried supervisors. They argued their layoffs violated the company's "Working With General Motors" handbook, which outlined seniority-based reduction-in-force procedures for employees with "Good/Competent" ratings. General Motors countered that the plaintiffs' month-to-month employment agreements, containing exclusivity clauses, superseded any handbook provisions, establishing an at-will employment relationship. The court, applying New York law, determined that the "express limitation" exception to the at-will doctrine arises singularly from contract law, and the plaintiffs' integrated employment agreements precluded the handbook from constituting a binding limitation. Consequently, finding no material fact genuinely in issue and concluding the defendant was entitled to discharge the plaintiffs with a month's notice, the court granted General Motors' motion for summary judgment.

wrongful layoffemployment at willsummary judgmentcontract lawemployee handbookseniorityexpress agreementconsiderationfederal diversity jurisdictionreduction in force
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership

Jose Verdugo, a food service deliveryman, was injured in December 2003 and received workers' compensation benefits. He also initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) later determined that Verdugo's disability ended on January 24, 2006, leading to the termination of his benefits. Subsequently, the defendants in the personal injury action sought to preclude Verdugo from relitigating the duration of his disability, arguing collateral estoppel based on the WCB's finding. The court, affirming the WCB's decision, reversed the Appellate Division's order, granting the defendants' motion to preclude further litigation on disability beyond the WCB's determined date, finding the issue was fully and fairly litigated.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPersonal Injury ActionCollateral EstoppelAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardDisability DurationMedical TreatmentLost EarningsMedical ExpensesGuardianship Proceeding
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Davis

Eighteen claimants appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that disqualified them from benefits due to misconduct during a strike against the General Electric Company. The misconduct occurred at the employer's plants during a strike initiated after their collective bargaining agreement expired. Claimants argued that 'employment' in Labor Law § 593(3) should be limited to acts committed while working, but the court rejected this interpretation. They also raised claims of federal pre-emption and denial of due process, which were found to be without merit. The court ultimately affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

MisconductStrikeUnemployment BenefitsLabor LawFederal Pre-emptionDue ProcessCollective Bargaining AgreementUnionAppellate Review
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,485 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