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

London v. London

This case concerns a lawsuit filed by a former wife against her former husband, alleging unlawful interception and recording of her telephone conversations with their eight-year-old daughter. The defendant used an automatic answering machine attached to his home phone, where the daughter resided, to record these calls during 1973-1974, a period of their legal separation before their divorce. The plaintiff sought damages under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 and 2520, which prohibit willful wire communication interception and provide a civil cause of action. The Court, citing Simpson v. Simpson, dismissed the complaint, ruling that Congress did not intend these statutes to apply to a family member's interception of calls within the family home, regardless of the recording method or the specific family relationship.

Telephone EavesdroppingWire Communication InterceptionFamily LawDomestic DisputesPrivacyFederal JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss18 U.S.C. 251118 U.S.C. 2520Marital Home
References
3
Case No. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2012

Zimmerman v. Poly Prep Country Day School

This case involves twelve former Poly Prep students and summer camp attendees alleging sexual abuse by former football coach Philip Foglietta between 1966 and 1986. Plaintiffs sued Poly Prep, its Board of Trustees, and administrators for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Title IX of the Education Amendments, and state-law claims including negligent retention/supervision and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The Court dismissed all RICO claims against Poly Prep and most against individual defendants, allowing only Culhane and Henningsen's RICO claims to proceed. Title IX claims against Poly Prep and state-law negligence claims against Poly Prep (for all plaintiffs except Paggioli) survived, pending resolution of a statute of limitations defense. Hiltbrand's separate fraud claim and all of Paggioli's claims were dismissed. The court scheduled an evidentiary hearing to address the equitable estoppel issue related to the statute of limitations.

School liabilitySexual abuseRICO Act claimsTitle IX discriminationNegligent supervisionBreach of fiduciary dutyStatute of limitations defenseEquitable estoppelMail fraudWire fraud
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burdick v. Afrimet-Indussa Inc.

Plaintiff Donald Burdick, a former employee of Valeron Corporation, sued Afrimet-Indussa Inc. and Kennametal, Inc. for lung disease caused by cobalt exposure. Earlier similar actions were dismissed due to the Statute of Limitations. These current actions were brought under the 1986 toxic torts revival legislation. Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata and that the revival statute was unconstitutional. The court denied the motions, determining that "tungsten-carbide" in the revival statute includes cobalt exposure in the hard metals manufacturing process, consistent with legislative intent to revive claims for Valeron employees. The court also held that the dismissal of the prior actions did not bar the current ones under res judicata and that the revival statute is constitutional.

toxic tortsstatute of limitationsrevival statutecobalt exposuretungsten-carbidehard metals diseasesummary judgment motionres judicatadue processlegislative intent
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Held v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners, consisting of group self-insured trusts (GSITs), initiated a proceeding to challenge assessments levied by the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board under Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (5) (former [f]). They argued that the statute was inapplicable to GSITs and that the Board failed to meet statutory prerequisites for the assessments. The Supreme Court annulled the assessments on the grounds that the Board failed to satisfy prerequisites, although it deemed the statute applicable to GSITs. Petitioners appealed the Supreme Court’s finding that the statute was applicable. The appellate court dismissed the appeals, determining that petitioners were not aggrieved by the judgment as they had received the relief sought—the annulment of the assessments. The court also clarified that collateral estoppel would not apply to the interpretation of the statute, which is a pure question of law, and that the discovery issue was academic.

Group Self-Insured TrustsWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationAssessmentsAnnulmentAppeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCollateral EstoppelCPLR Article 78Declaratory Judgment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2011

Faulkner v. Arista Records LLC

Plaintiffs, former members of the Bay City Rollers, sued Arista Records, LLC for unpaid royalties, arguing that Arista's written acknowledgements of debt restarted the statute of limitations under New York's General Obligations Law Section 17-101. Arista claimed the statute of limitations barred the claims. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that conditional acknowledgements in letters from Arista's counsel, subsequently satisfied by Plaintiffs' 2007 notice, restarted the statute of limitations. The court denied Arista's cross-motion for partial summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion to strike certain exhibits.

Statute of LimitationsRoyalties DisputeContractual ObligationsAcknowledgement of DebtPartial Summary JudgmentMotion to Strike EvidenceMusic Industry LawRecord CompanyThe Bay City RollersNew York Law
References
35
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoerger v. Board of Education

This case concerns an appeal regarding the applicable Statute of Limitations for a breach of fair representation claim brought by former public school employees (Hoerger and Hyman) against their union and the Board of Education. The employees retired under an incentive plan but later discovered other employees received higher incentives through separate, privately negotiated agreements, facilitated by the union. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and breach of the duty of fair representation, along with fraud. The union sought dismissal based on a shorter Statute of Limitations, citing federal labor law. However, the court ruled that federal precedents like DelCostello v Teamsters are inapplicable to public sector employment. Instead, the court applied New York State's six-year Statute of Limitations for contract actions (CPLR 213 [2]), analogizing the claim to legal malpractice for pecuniary damages. Consequently, the plaintiffs' action was deemed timely, and the Special Term's denial of the union's motion to dismiss was affirmed.

Statute of LimitationsBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationPublic Sector EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementRetirement Incentive PlanLegal Malpractice AnalogyFederal Labor Law DistinctionNew York State LawClass ActionFraudulent Inducement
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lalley v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

This case involves a hybrid lawsuit filed by a former employee ("Plaintiff") against his former employer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and his union, United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 2603. The Plaintiff alleged that Bethlehem breached their Collective Bargaining Agreement by recalling less senior employees to his former department after he had voluntarily taken severance. He also claimed the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to process his grievance regarding these recalls. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was untimely and lacked merit. The court determined the plaintiff's claim was timely under the six-month statute of limitations for hybrid § 301/fair representation claims. However, on the merits, the court found no genuine issues of material fact indicating that Bethlehem Steel Corporation breached the CBA, concluding that the recalls were consistent with the CBA's seniority provisions, including those for craft status employees. Consequently, as the employer's breach was not established, the court did not need to address the union's duty of fair representation claim under Vaca v. Sipes. The defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Labor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentEmployee SenioritySeverance BenefitsEmployee RecallGrievance ProcessStatute of LimitationsContract Breach
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 3,105 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