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. 2000 WL 178191
Regular Panel Decision

Selby v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance

Adrian and Jill Selby sued Principal Life Insurance Company, alleging various errors in processing their health insurance claims. They challenged Principal's interpretation of an infertility treatment exclusion and its claims review procedures under ERISA. The court considered motions for class certification for four proposed classes. Class I, addressing Principal's online claims review process for altering diagnoses, was certified. Classes II and III, concerning medically necessary infertility treatments and New York Insurance Law violations respectively, were not certified for class-wide adjudication, though individual claims were permitted. Class IV, challenging the sufficiency of claim denial letters, was not certified immediately due to the named plaintiffs' lack of standing for injunctive relief, but conditional certification was offered upon identification of a new suitable plaintiff.

ERISAClass ActionHealth InsuranceClaims DenialInfertility ExclusionOnline ReviewMedical BenefitsStandingFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Benefit Plans
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re McLean Industries, Inc.

This case concerns U.S. Lines, Inc. (now Janus Industries), along with Mclean Industries, Inc. and First Colony Farms, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), and the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (collectively, the "Movants"). They filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1986 and had a plan of reorganization confirmed in 1989, which relied on the preservation of net operating losses (NOLs). After the IRS announced proposed regulations in 1990 that could challenge the use of NOLs if a plan's principal purpose was tax evasion, the Movants sought a court order declaring that tax evasion was not the principal purpose of their plan. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) opposed, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the applicability of the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court denied the Movants' motion, holding that under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(d), only a governmental unit can initiate a tax avoidance motion, and the issue of tax liability based on proposed regulations was not a concrete controversy.

BankruptcyChapter 11Tax AvoidanceNet Operating Losses (NOLs)IRS RegulationsPlan ConfirmationPost-Confirmation MotionDeclaratory Judgment ActSubject Matter JurisdictionGovernmental Unit
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sandiford v. City of New York Department of Education

This is a dissenting opinion concerning a school aide terminated by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for alleged inappropriate conduct with a 16-year-old student. The plaintiff, a lesbian, claimed discrimination based on sexual orientation and retaliation for complaining about the principal. The dissent argues that the plaintiff's failure to appeal the grievance decision, which substantiated her misconduct, precludes relitigation of the facts. It asserts that the principal's decision to terminate was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons supported by the DOE's investigation and recommendation. Furthermore, the dissent concludes that the retaliation claim fails because the adverse employment action predated the plaintiff's complaints. The dissenting judge would therefore modify the trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's discrimination claim and affirm the dismissal of retaliation and libel claims.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationRetaliationPublic SchoolEmployee TerminationMisconductGrievanceCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. ADJ3164730 (LBO 0135441), ADJ3921082 (LBO 0100188), ADJ451512 (LBO 0100187)
Regular
Jan 03, 2011

SOMBOON INTRACHOOTO vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/RANCHO PRINCIPAL RECONSIDERATION Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for permanent total disability and lifetime medical care awarded to an applicant who sustained industrial injuries as a registered nurse. The applicant's husband, also a lien claimant, provided 24-hour home health aide services after December 5, 2004. While the original award set the reasonable value of these services at $100 per day, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration. The Board increased the daily reimbursement rate to $200, finding it consistent with the evidence of actual care provided and more economical for the defendant than hiring external agencies or institutionalizing the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSomboon IntrachootoCounty of Los AngelesJoint Supplemental Findings and Awardpermanent total disabilitylifetime medical carehome health aidereasonable value of servicespetition for reconsiderationAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TOMUSHUNAS, DEBBIE v. DESIGNCRETE OF AMERICA, LLC

Plaintiff commenced an action against her former employer and its principal, alleging assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. This decision was based on the fact that the plaintiff had previously accepted $40,000 in workers' compensation benefits for illnesses and injuries stemming from the same alleged misconduct by her employer. The court held that by accepting these benefits, the plaintiff forfeited her right to pursue an intentional tort action at law, citing established legal precedent. The ruling emphasized that the settlement nature of the workers' compensation award did not alter this forfeiture.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSummary Judgment DismissalIntentional Tort ClaimsEmployer MisconductForfeiture of Legal RightsSettlement of ClaimAssault AllegationsEmotional Distress ClaimPrima Facie TortJudicial Precedent
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volpe v. New York City Department of Education

Cheryl Volpe, a special education teacher, sued the New York City Department of Education and Principal Olivia Francis-Webber, alleging retaliation, equal protection violations, and unlawful searches stemming from her advocacy for special needs students. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court partially granted and partially denied. The court dismissed Volpe's Fourth Amendment and equal protection claims, finding no protected class or unreasonable search. However, the court allowed her Rehabilitation Act and ADA retaliation claim to proceed, specifically regarding an incident on December 18, 2013, where she was confined after attempting to speak with a student's parent.

Special Education TeacherWorkplace RetaliationDisability DiscriminationADA Title IIRehabilitation ActPublic School SystemMotion to DismissHostile Work EnvironmentFourth Amendment ViolationEqual Protection Claim
References
68
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03275 [217 AD3d 1168]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Matter of Jazmyne VV.

This case involves an appeal by Jazmyne VV. from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County, which adjudicated her a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS). The principal of Randall Middle School, Juliann Quinn, filed the PINS petition due to Jazmyne's habitual truancy and disobedient behavior. Jazmyne argued that the PINS petition was jurisdictionally defective, citing the absence of a manifestation determination hearing and the Probation Department's failure to provide its case record to Family Court. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that a manifestation determination hearing was not warranted as Jazmyne was not a special education student at the time, the record was made available to the court, and the petition adequately detailed diversion efforts.

PINSTruancySpecial Education Student StatusManifestation Determination HearingDiversion ServicesFamily Court Act Article 7Appellate ReviewJurisdictional DefectsCortland CountySchool Discipline
References
12
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Siegel v. Board of Educ. of City of New York

Plaintiffs, elementary school principals, filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the New York City School Board. They claimed that the wage differential between elementary and high school principals constituted gender discrimination. The defendant, the Board of Education, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the class was predominantly male and thus failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and that the wage differential was based on factors other than sex. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. It found no evidence of intentional wage discrimination and supported the defense that higher compensation for high school principals was due to greater responsibilities.

Title VIISex DiscriminationWage DifferentialElementary School PrincipalsHigh School PrincipalsSummary JudgmentEqual Pay ActBennett AmendmentPublic EducationGender Discrimination
References
12
Case No. 09 Civ. 8139
Regular Panel Decision

Lopresti v. Pace Press, Inc.

The plaintiff, Patrick LoPresti, as Trustee of the ALA-Lithographic Industry Pension Plan, brought an action against Pace Press, Inc. and other defendants, seeking to recover withdrawal liability under ERISA. The plaintiff alleged that a principal purpose of the asset sale transaction between Pace Press and DG3 North America, Inc. was to evade or avoid withdrawal liability. Following a non-jury trial, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that evasion of withdrawal liability was a principal purpose of the sale or its structure. The Court concluded that the primary motivation for the sale was to avert Pace Press's bankruptcy and the Principals' personal guaranty liabilities, and that the transaction's structure served legitimate business objectives. Consequently, the Court denied the plaintiff's claim to recover withdrawal liability.

ERISA Withdrawal LiabilityMultiemployer Pension PlanAsset Purchase AgreementEvade or Avoid LiabilityCorporate BankruptcyPersonal GuarantiesSecured CreditorsUnsecured Creditors PoolBusiness ValuationEmployment Agreements
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 197 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