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
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

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. ADJ4118575 (MON 0342974)
Regular
May 26, 2010

MANUEL ORTIZ vs. TOWER INDUSTRIES, INC., SCIF INSURED INLAND EMPIRE

This case involves an applicant who sustained severe injuries in a riding accident, including multiple pelvic fractures and urological damage, requiring extensive surgeries. The applicant was awarded 100% permanent disability due to his constant pain, limited mobility, and functional impairments, including urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. The defendant appealed, arguing the 100% disability rating was not justified and disputing the findings of sleep disorder and erectile dysfunction. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the applicant's 100% permanent disability, finding the evidence supported total permanent disability based on the facts of his severe injury and ongoing functional limitations. The Board denied the defendant's petitions for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityPetitions for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAgreed Medical ExaminersLabor Code Section 4662Pelvis InjuryLower Extremity InjuryUrethra InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

HART EX REL. HART v. Massanari

Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of her minor daughter, Ginger E. Hart, to challenge the denial of disability benefits by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The case focused on the interpretation of "extreme impairment" in social functioning for child disability claims under the Social Security Act's Supplemental Security Income program. The District Court denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, reversing the Commissioner's decision. The court found that the Commissioner's determination that Ginger had only a marked, not extreme, limitation in social functioning was not supported by substantial evidence, especially considering clarifications provided in later regulations regarding the definition of "extreme limitation". The case was remanded for the calculation of benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActChild DisabilityFunctional LimitationsSocial FunctioningAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilInterim Final RulesExtreme LimitationMarked Limitation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2014

Hairston v. Commissioner of Social Security

Denise M. Hairston, on behalf of her minor daughter S.N., sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which denied S.N.'s application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. S.N. alleged disability due to various impairments, including migraine headaches, obesity, impulse control disorder NOS, and depressive disorder NOS, leading to functional limitations. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that S.N.'s impairments were severe but did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment, and functionally equaled only a "marked" limitation in the "caring for yourself" domain, thus denying benefits. The United States Magistrate Judge Frank Maas denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the ALJ's finding regarding S.N.'s health and physical well-being domain did not withstand scrutiny and required further fact-finding regarding the frequency and intensity of her migraines. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings, including obtaining additional school and medical records, and ensuring the claimant's understanding and waiver of the right to counsel.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Child DisabilityDepressive Disorder NOSMigraine DisorderObesityFunctional ImpairmentAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Judicial ReviewRemand Order
References
34
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1998

In re the Claim of Peabody

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed on September 9, 1998, which ruled that the claimant was not entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. This denial was based on Labor Law § 591 (5), a 1996 amendment that limits unemployment benefits when a claimant also receives workers' compensation benefits exceeding their average weekly wage. The claimant contended that the statutory limitation should consider the pre-injury weekly wage used for workers' compensation. However, the Board, and subsequently the court, found no textual basis to interpret 'average weekly wage' in Labor Law § 591 (5) differently from its definition in Labor Law former § 590 (2). Consequently, the Board's conclusion was affirmed.

Unemployment benefitsWorkers' compensation offsetStatutory interpretationAverage weekly wage calculationBenefit eligibilityLabor Law § 591(5)Appeal Board decisionJudicial reviewAffirmed decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,269 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