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. ADJ19479057
Regular
Aug 26, 2025

GERALD TORRES vs. PRO DEO FOUNDATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant, Pro Deo Foundation and State Compensation Insurance Fund, petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's decision, which found Gerald Torres to be an employee of Pro Deo Foundation. Defendant contended Torres was a volunteer or independent contractor and should be judicially estopped from claiming workers' compensation due to a prior settlement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of employment, emphasizing the WCJ's credibility determinations and concluding that the defendant failed to satisfy the 'ABC' test for independent contractor status. The Board timely acted on and subsequently denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationPro Deo FoundationState Compensation Insurance FundGerald TorresADJ19479057Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersEmployee StatusVolunteerIndependent Contractor
References
7
Case No. Docket No. 8
Regular Panel Decision

Desano v. Blossom South, LLC

This case involves a lawsuit alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disability Act (ADA), and a state law claim for libel per se. The Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, claimed that confidential medical information was improperly disclosed in violation of ADA confidentiality provisions. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss all federal claims and the state law claim. The Court dismissed the FMLA claims (First, Second, and Fourth causes of action) but allowed the ADA claim and the state law libel per se claim (Third and Fifth causes of action) to proceed, finding a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4).

FMLA violationsADA violationsLibel per seMotion to dismissConfidentiality of medical informationEmployer inquiryJob-related functionsSupplemental jurisdictionPlausibility standardRule 12(b)(6)
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PRO-TECH WELDING AND FABRICATION INC. v. Lajuett

Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc. sued its former employees and related corporations for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract concerning its 'Sno Pusher' snow removal device and the '755 patent. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no infringement and patent invalidity, while Pro-Tech cross-moved to dismiss counterclaims. The core dispute revolved around whether defendants' 'boxed gusset' design infringed on the '755 patent's 'vertical reinforcing channels.' The court found no literal infringement, distinguishing 'channels' from 'boxed gussets' based on common meaning and prosecution history. It also rejected infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel, as the patentee had previously narrowed the claim scope during prosecution to distinguish prior art. As a result, the patent infringement claims (Counts I and II) were dismissed with prejudice, while state law claims were dismissed without prejudice for refiling in state court.

Patent InfringementTrade SecretsBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDoctrine of EquivalentsProsecution History EstoppelSnow Removal EquipmentSnow PusherBox PlowClaim Construction
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jensen v. Jensen

This case is an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment in Cayuga County concerning a divorce and maintenance award. The plaintiff appealed the initial award of $425 per week for two years, then $300 per week thereafter. The appellate court modified the judgment, ruling that the plaintiff should receive $425 per week until the defendant retires, citing the long marriage, significant income disparity, and the plaintiff's permanent disability. The court rejected the plaintiff's request for higher maintenance based on the parties' pre-divorce standard of living, finding they lived beyond their means. Additionally, the court found errors in the retroactive maintenance award and the recoupment of overpayments, removing these provisions. The court affirmed the lower court's decision not to award attorney's or accountant's fees.

DivorceMaintenanceSpousal SupportAppealAppellate ReviewIncome DisparityDisabilityStandard of LivingRetroactive MaintenanceOverpayments
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Teamsters Local 210

Pro se plaintiffs, including Houston, filed a lawsuit against an ERISA-regulated fund seeking severance pay. They argued they were entitled to benefits because their termination occurred 'within one year of' their employer ceasing operations, interpreting the phrase to include the period before cessation. The defendants contended this phrase referred only to the period after cessation and also argued that all plaintiffs, except Houston, failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the non-Houston plaintiffs failed to exhaust remedies. For Houston's claim, the court found the plan language unambiguously supported the defendants' prospective interpretation of the 'within one year of' clause. Alternatively, even if ambiguous, the plan granted the defendants discretionary authority, and their consistent interpretation was deemed rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

ERISA BenefitsSeverance Pay DisputePlan InterpretationSummary Plan Description (SPD)Administrative ExhaustionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDiscretionary AuthorityEmployer CessationPro Se LitigantsMotion for Summary Judgment
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans-Amityville Dairy, Inc. v. Kelly

The plaintiff, an employer, initiated an action against individual defendants and their union, alleging that they violated a no-strike provision in their employment agreement by conducting a strike, which resulted in damages to the plaintiff. The defendants filed a motion to stay the action, arguing that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration as per 9 U.S.C. § 3. The court reviewed the employment agreement, specifically Sections 16(a) and 17(a) and (b), to ascertain whether the claim was subject to arbitration. Concluding that Section 16(a) was broad enough to encompass the plaintiff's claim, the District Court granted the defendants' motion, ordering a stay of the action pending arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementStay of ActionEmployment AgreementNo-Strike ProvisionBreach of ContractLabor DisputeFederal Arbitration ActCollective Bargaining AgreementDispute ResolutionDistrict Court Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Gas Stations, Inc. v. Doe

This Per Curiam decision addresses an action for a permanent injunction filed by an unnamed gas station owner against unnamed defendants who were picketing the plaintiff's places of business. The picketing arose after the plaintiff had a sign erected by non-union labor, though the plaintiff was not involved in the sign erection industry. The court determined that this dispute did not constitute a 'labor dispute' under section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, as there was no controversy with the plaintiff or its employees concerning labor terms or conditions. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite. However, the court reversed the granting of the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint and denied that motion, allowing defendants leave to answer.

Labor LawPicketingInjunctionCivil Practice ActLabor DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsGas StationAppellate DecisionAffirmationReversal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Hom v. Brennan

Plaintiff George Horn, proceeding pro se, initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, alleging that various defendants, including judges and state officials, deprived him of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was subsequently removed to the Eastern District of New York. Horn's motion to remand the action back to state court was denied. The court granted defendant Lois Grossman's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ruling that she was not a state actor for Section 1983 purposes and the conspiracy allegations were insufficient. Additionally, the plaintiff filed six separate motions to supplement his complaint to add new defendants and claims, all of which were denied due to judicial immunity for the proposed judicial defendants, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barring review of state court decisions, or the futility of the proposed claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983Pro Se LitigationJudicial ImmunityRooker-Feldman DoctrineMotion to RemandMotion to DismissSupplemental PleadingsFederal JurisdictionState Actor
References
52
Case No. 07-CV-6149L
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2010

Johnson v. THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER

Plaintiffs Keith Johnson, M.D., and Laura Schmidt, R.N., filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital. They alleged defendants defrauded the government by submitting false claims for anesthesiology services under Medicare/Medicaid, claiming physician supervision when it was absent. Johnson also alleged retaliatory discharge for reporting violations, and Schmidt claimed retaliation for refusing to alter medical records. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead fraud with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Johnson cross-moved to amend the complaint to add claims of libel per se and prima facie tort against Dr. Lustik. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege that any fraudulent bills were actually presented to Medicare/Medicaid. The retaliation claims were also dismissed because the complaints were not made in furtherance of a qui tam action. Johnson's motion to amend was denied as frivolous and in bad faith. Defendants' request for sanctions was denied without prejudice.

False Claims ActQui TamMedicare FraudMedicaid FraudRetaliatory DischargePleading StandardsRule 9(b)Motion to DismissLeave to AmendLibel
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mira v. Kingston

Plaintiff Leslie Moore Mira, proceeding pro se, filed a claim under Title VII against her former employer Platts/McGraw Hill Financial, Inc. and several individual defendants, alleging retaliation for speaking out against sexual harassment, leading to a racially hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and persistent post-employment harassment. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the claims were time-barred. The court found Plaintiff's federal claims were indeed time-barred as she failed to file an administrative charge within the requisite 300 days. Consequently, the Title VII claims against the individual defendants were dismissed with prejudice as Title VII claims only apply to employers, and the federal claims against Platts were dismissed with prejudice. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state and local law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIIStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingPro Se LitigationMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 16,061 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