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
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

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1994

Claim of Boshart v. St. Francis Hospital

The claimant, a hospital employee, stopped working due to an aggravated preexisting back condition and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Her claim was initially denied, but a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found prima facie medical evidence for an occupational back condition. Upon appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board rejected the employer's contention that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, ruling the employer had waived this defense. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer failed to raise the Statute of Limitations defense at the first hearing where all parties were present, thereby waiving the right to assert it.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsWaiverOccupational DiseaseBack InjuryEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewProcedural DefenseInsurance ClaimBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2002

Mason v. American Tobacco Co.

Plaintiffs brought a class action under the Medicare as Secondary Payer (MSP) statute, seeking certification for a class of individuals who received or are receiving health care services for tobacco-related illnesses, paid for by Medicare. Defendants opposed certification and moved to dismiss. The court denied class certification and dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs' interpretation of the ambiguous MSP statute was inappropriate. The court ruled that the statute does not support a qui tam-type individual action masquerading as a class action, and defendants, as tortfeasors, do not qualify as "self-insured plans" under the statute without specific agreements or funds. The decision emphasized that the legislative history does not indicate a Congressional design to apply the MSP statute broadly to general tortfeasors.

Medicare Secondary Payer ActClass ActionStatutory InterpretationQui Tam ActionSelf-Insured PlanTobacco LitigationHealthcare LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Motion to DismissClass Certification Denial
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scalone v. Celotex Corp.

Plaintiff George Scalone, a New Jersey resident, brought an action in New York claiming asbestos-related injuries from exposure in New York worksites. Defendants Combustion Engineering, Inc. and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was time-barred by the New York Borrowing Statute (C.P.L.R. § 202). They contended that Scalone's cause of action accrued in New Jersey, where he became ill, and therefore New Jersey's statute of limitations should apply, precluding the New York Toxic Tort Revival Statute (C.P.L.R. § 214-c(2)). The court denied the motions, holding that for the purposes of the Toxic Tort Revival Statute, the place of accrual and place of injury are the same, and both are New York, given the plaintiff's exposure in the state. The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the Toxic Tort Revival Statute and found no clear legislative intent to exclude non-residents exposed in New York, even if they had other potential forums.

Toxic TortAsbestos ExposureStatute of LimitationsBorrowing StatuteToxic Tort Revival StatuteC.P.L.R. § 214-c(2)C.P.L.R. § 202Personal InjuryInterstate LawForum Shopping
References
2
Case No. ADJ1058134
Regular
Sep 04, 2025

DENNIS LEMON vs. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS, CIGA for RELIANCE INS. CO., US FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE CO., ZENITH

Applicant Dennis Lemon sought reconsideration of a WCJ's "Findings and Order" that barred his claim due to the statute of limitations. He contended that the WCJ misapplied the burden of proof, as the statute of limitations is the defendant's responsibility, and that the statute was tolled due to the defendant's failure to notify him of his claim rights. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the statute of limitations. The matter has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including the determination of the date of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Burden of ProofTollingReynoldsNotice of ClaimCumulative TraumaDate of Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Gross

The case involves an appeal by a podiatrist (defendant) from an order that dismissed their affirmative defense based on the Statute of Limitations for medical malpractice. The core issue is the interpretation of “medical malpractice” as used in CPLR 214-a, specifically whether it applies to malpractice actions against podiatrists. The court examines other statutes enacted by chapter 109 of the Laws of 1975, which defined “medical malpractice” in the context of licensed physicians and hospitals. Based on these related statutes, the court concludes that CPLR 214-a's abbreviated Statute of Limitations applies only to physicians and hospitals, not to podiatrists. Therefore, the order dismissing the defendant's affirmative defense was affirmed.

MalpracticePodiatryStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214-aStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentMedical Malpractice InsuranceProfessional RegulationAppellate ReviewJudicial District
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1999

Rachimi v. Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck, P. C.

The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed a legal malpractice action as time-barred, applying the 1996 amendments to CPLR 214 (6). The plaintiff commenced the action more than four years after accrual and over 10 months after the amendments clarified a three-year statute of limitations. The Court found no due process violation in dismissing the complaint, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reason for the delay or reliance on the prior statute. This case was distinguished from a precedent where a shorter delay and prompt filing after the new statute's expiration mitigated the dismissal, as here the action became time-barred immediately upon the new statute's effective date.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsTime-BarredCPLR 214(6) AmendmentAppellate ReviewDue ProcessDismissal of ComplaintAccrual RuleJudicial PrecedentRetroactive Application
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wildman

This case addresses the constitutionality of Administrative Code § 10-118 (b) of the City of New York, which prohibits transporting building materials without proof of ownership. Defendant challenged the statute, arguing the complaint was facially insufficient and that the statute violated due process by creating an irrebuttable presumption and being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Judge Michael Gerstein denied all of defendant's motions. The court found the complaint facially sufficient and determined that the statute does not create an impermissible irrebuttable presumption. Furthermore, the court concluded that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, as it provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct and clear standards for enforcement, rationally deterring theft and vandalism.

ConstitutionalityDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineIrrebuttable PresumptionAdministrative CodeStatutory InterpretationCriminal LawFacial InsufficiencyProof of Ownership
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 1,863 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