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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00103 [212 AD3d 644]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2023

Pecora v. Fitness Intl., LLC

Michael Pecora appealed from an order granting summary judgment to Fitness International, LLC, in a personal injury action. Pecora alleged he contracted infections, including MRSA, from using a sauna at the defendant's health club. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the defendants demonstrated the plaintiff could not prove the pathogen originated at their facility, noting MRSA's common transmission, regular cleaning, and lack of prior complaints. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, leading to the affirmation of the dismissal.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityMRSAHealth ClubProximate CauseSpeculationDangerous ConditionInfectious DiseaseAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brennan v. Bally Total Fitness

Kathryn Brennan filed a civil rights action against her former employer, Bally Total Fitness Corp., alleging sexual harassment under Title VII and disability discrimination under the ADA. Bally moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely and to compel arbitration based on its Employee Dispute Resolution Procedure (EDRP). The court denied Bally's motion to dismiss the Title VII claim, applying the 'continuing-violation exception' due to Brennan's allegations of ongoing harassment. The court also denied Bally's motion to compel arbitration, finding Bally's unilateral modifications to the EDRP invalid and raising questions of unconscionability regarding the original EDRP. The case is remanded for jurisdictional discovery and a possible hearing to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement.

Civil RightsSexual HarassmentDisability DiscriminationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Motion to DismissMotion to Compel ArbitrationContinuing Violation Exception
References
27
Case No. ADJ7582253
Regular
Dec 13, 2011

CHRISTOPHER GONZALEZ vs. 24 HOUR FITNESS, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order finding Christopher Gonzalez's claim against 24 Hour Fitness timely. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which concluded that voluntarily provided medical treatment by the employer extended the statute of limitations to five years. Furthermore, the WCJ found the employer's denial notice failed to comply with notice requirements and contained ambiguous language, and that the applicant met the elements of equitable estoppel, preventing the employer from asserting the statute of limitations defense.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatute of LimitationsTollingStandard RectifierVoluntary Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 5402(c)Equitable EstoppelNotice Requirements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shedlock v. Connelie

The case concerns a petitioner, a police officer for the City of Oneonta, who was disqualified from an appointment to the State Police due to a failure to meet eligibility requirements regarding fitness and good moral character. Special Term initially annulled the disqualification, citing a lack of a due process hearing. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, asserting that the Superintendent of State Police has discretionary authority over such appointments and that a formal hearing is not constitutionally or statutorily required for disqualification in these administrative functions, provided judicial review is available. The court emphasized the higher standards of fitness and character expected of police officers and concluded that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated.

Police DisqualificationCivil Service LawDue Process RightsFitness RequirementsMoral CharacterAdministrative DiscretionAppellate ReviewState Police AppointmentExecutive LawNew York State Constitution
References
13
Case No. ADJ6884625
Regular
Jun 19, 2012

JASON PETERSON, KIRSTIE MCCRAINE-PETERSON vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the death of Jason Peterson, a correctional officer, from a pulmonary embolism after injuring his calf in a kickboxing class. The applicant, his widow, claimed the injury and death were work-related, arguing the kickboxing class was a reasonable expectancy of employment due to a general fitness requirement and incentive program. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the claim barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9) because the decedent's belief that kickboxing was required was not objectively reasonable, as mere general assertions of fitness expectations are insufficient. Commissioner Brass dissented, believing the decedent's participation was both subjectively and objectively reasonable given its likely benefit to his job performance as a correctional officer.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Pulmonary EmbolismCorrectional OfficerKickboxingOff-duty Recreational ActivityReasonable Expectancy of EmploymentSubjective BeliefObjective ReasonablenessEzzy testCity of Stockton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jenneiahn)
References
2
Case No. ADJ10112502 ADJ9730487
Regular
Apr 03, 2017

EDGAR RIVERA vs. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC dba L.A. FITNESS, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Edgar Rivera's petition for reconsideration. The petition was deemed skeletal and failed to specifically state grounds and evidence. Additionally, the petition was not properly served on all adverse parties, which is a mandatory requirement for dismissal. The Board incorporated the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which would have led to denial on the merits had the procedural defects not necessitated dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalWCJ ReportLabor Code Section 5902Appeals Board RulesSkeletal PetitionProof of ServiceAdverse PartiesCredibility DeterminationsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Tru-Fit Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of TFM Industries, was injured in a parking lot in New Jersey and received workers' compensation benefits under New Jersey law. She subsequently filed a common-law tort action against Tru-Fit Manufacturing Co., Inc., a corporation that had merged into TFM in 1981, alleging negligent work in the parking lot. The IAS court initially denied TFM's motion to dismiss, which was based on the exclusivity of workers' compensation as a remedy. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting the motion to dismiss the complaint against Tru-Fit Manufacturing Co., Inc. The court reasoned that New Jersey law should apply, which establishes workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy, and rejected the application of the 'Billy' exception, as the alleged liability was not deemed separate from TFM's role as an employer and operator of the business premises.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyNew Jersey LawCommon-Law TortCorporate LiabilityPremises LiabilityMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalEmployer Immunity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sundram v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves a petitioner, an Indian national and permanent resident alien, whose application for a taxicab driver's license in Niagara Falls, New York, was denied due to a citizenship requirement in a city ordinance. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedents like Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Truax v. Raich, the court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens regarding their right to earn a livelihood. The court found no compelling state interest to justify the citizenship classification for taxicab drivers, deeming the "undifferentiated fear" of criminal activity insufficient. Consequently, the court held subdivision (e) of section 16 of chapter 365 of the Niagara Falls ordinances unconstitutional, but withheld injunctive relief pending the full processing of the petitioner's application.

Citizenship RequirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentAlien RightsTaxicab LicensingOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational LicensingDiscriminationRight to WorkNiagara Falls
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 5,243 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