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

Brodsky v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

This case involves Plaintiffs (Richard L. Brodsky, Westchester’s Citizens’ Awareness Network, Public Health and Sustainable Energy, and Sierra Club-Atlantic Chapter) challenging the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) decision to grant an exemption to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., regarding fire protection requirements at the Indian Point Energy Center. Plaintiffs alleged that the NRC acted unlawfully by granting this exemption, arguing it lacked authority, failed to hold public hearings, and did not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The court, treating the NRC’s motion as one for summary judgment, examined whether the NRC’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Ultimately, the court deferred to the NRC’s expertise, finding that the Commission had the authority to grant exemptions, was not required to hold public hearings for exemptions, and adequately conducted an Environmental Assessment. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAtomic Energy ActFire Protection ProgramExemption ChallengeIndian Point Energy CenterNuclear SafetyAdministrative Procedure ActNational Environmental Policy ActSummary JudgmentJudicial Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Utility Workers Union v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) challenged Section 606 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986, which mandates fingerprint checks for unescorted access to nuclear facilities. The UWUA sought a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction against the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) implementing regulation. The court dismissed the challenge to the NRC regulation due to lack of jurisdiction, ruling it a final order reviewable only by the Courts of Appeals under the Hobbs Act, and the action was untimely. Addressing the constitutional challenge to the statute, the court found that the fingerprinting requirement did not violate Fourth Amendment or privacy rights, deeming the intrusion minimal and rationally related to national security. Consequently, the plaintiff's motions were denied, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.

Constitutional LawFourth AmendmentPrivacy RightsFingerprintingNuclear SecurityDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefJurisdictionAtomic Energy ActHobbs Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1984

Gotbaum v. Lewis

This case concerns a dispute over the regulatory authority of the New York State Superintendent of Insurance regarding employee welfare funds administered unilaterally by municipal unions but financed by the City of New York. Plaintiffs, trustees of these funds, sought a declaration that they were not bound by Insurance Law article III-A, citing decades of legislative intent and administrative practice that excluded unilaterally administered funds from its scope. Despite a history of failed legislative attempts to expand jurisdiction, the Superintendent of Insurance moved to compel registration. The court ultimately modified a prior order, denying the plaintiffs' motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby declaring that the Insurance Department possesses regulatory jurisdiction over these funds under Insurance Law article III-A, § 37-a.

Employee welfare fundsRegulatory jurisdictionInsurance Law Article III-AUnilaterally administered fundsCollective bargainingMunicipal unionsLegislative intentStatutory interpretationAdministrative overreachSummary judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sundram v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves a petitioner, an Indian national and permanent resident alien, whose application for a taxicab driver's license in Niagara Falls, New York, was denied due to a citizenship requirement in a city ordinance. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedents like Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Truax v. Raich, the court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens regarding their right to earn a livelihood. The court found no compelling state interest to justify the citizenship classification for taxicab drivers, deeming the "undifferentiated fear" of criminal activity insufficient. Consequently, the court held subdivision (e) of section 16 of chapter 365 of the Niagara Falls ordinances unconstitutional, but withheld injunctive relief pending the full processing of the petitioner's application.

Citizenship RequirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentAlien RightsTaxicab LicensingOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational LicensingDiscriminationRight to WorkNiagara Falls
References
14
Case No. ADJ10306044
Regular
Apr 20, 2018

RELENA BELTRAN vs. SAEED KESHTAR DBA ROUND TABLE PIZZA, WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Relena Beltran's Petition for Reconsideration because it was skeletal, unverified, and lacked proof of service on opposing parties. The petition failed to detail specific grounds, evidence, or legal arguments, and did not include a required verification despite notice of the defect. Furthermore, subsequent filings were also deficient and rejected under Appeals Board rules. Consequently, the Board found the petition subject to dismissal based on statutory and regulatory requirements.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceWCJ ReportAppeals Board Rule 10848Labor Code § 5902Appeals Board Rule 10842Appeals Board Rule 10846Appeals Board Rule 10852
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Janneh v. Runyon

Plaintiff Doudou Janneh, a former temporary employee of the United States Postal Service in Binghamton, filed a civil action alleging discrimination based on race, color, and national origin under Title VII for denied reemployment. He also brought a negligence claim against Postmaster Thomas Jenkins. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the discrimination claim was time-barred due to Janneh's failure to contact an EEO counselor within the 45-day federal requirement. The court found Janneh did not meet the administrative exhaustion requirement nor establish any regulatory or equitable exceptions to the timeliness rule. Consequently, summary judgment was granted for the defendants on the discrimination claims, and the plaintiff's state law negligence claims were dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEEO Counselor ContactAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionTimelinessEquitable TollingContinuing Violation TheoryFederal EmployerRacial Discrimination
References
24
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04895 [186 AD3d 1768]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2020

Matter of Demarco v. Trans Care Ambulance

Claimant Gina DeMarco, an emergency medical technician, sustained back and neck injuries in 2005, leading to a classification of permanently partially disabled. Her benefits were later suspended due to insufficient evidence of labor market attachment. Following a request for further action under an amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled in May 2018 that DeMarco was entitled to benefits without needing to show labor market attachment. The employer and carrier appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, which denied their application for administrative review as incomplete because it failed to specify the date an objection was interposed, as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying review due to the carrier's non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

Workers' Compensation LawAdministrative ReviewLabor Market AttachmentAppellate DivisionRegulatory ComplianceClaim DenialPermanent Partial DisabilityWCLJ DecisionForm RB-89
References
9
Case No. 12-cv-6439-RWS
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2012

In re Facebook, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Zack moved to remand his proposed class action against NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and NASDAQ Stock Market LLC to New York State Court. Zack alleged negligence by NASDAQ regarding system design and conduct during the Facebook IPO on May 18, 2012, which led to order execution problems for investors. NASDAQ removed the action to the Southern District of New York, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court considered the 'Grable exception' to the well-pleaded complaint rule, finding that Zack's state-law negligence claims necessarily implicated substantial federal issues concerning NASDAQ's regulatory duties as a self-regulatory organization under the Exchange Act. Citing precedent like D’Alessio v. New York Stock Exch., the court determined that the case required construing federal securities laws and evaluating NASDAQ's federally defined duties, thus conferring federal question jurisdiction. Consequently, Zack's motion to remand was denied.

Federal Question JurisdictionMotion to RemandClass ActionSecurities Exchange ActNASDAQFacebook IPONegligenceSelf-Regulatory OrganizationExchange RulesS.D.N.Y.
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Logan v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

The claimant, a medical surgery technician, initially reported a left knee injury after slipping on a wet floor on November 25, 2010. Nearly a year later, in September 2011, she filed a claim for additional injuries to her right knee, neck, back, and bilateral shoulders resulting from the same incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed these additional claims due to lack of timely written notice as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, both a Board panel and the full Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently excused the claimant's late notice, interpreting the statute to require employer knowledge of the accident, not each specific injury. The self-insured employer appealed, contending that "knowledge of the accident" should be construed as "knowledge of the injury," but the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the plain meaning and distinct statutory usage of "accident" and "injury."

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident vs. InjuryStatutory ConstructionPlain Meaning RuleLegislative IntentNew York LawAppellate Division
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 5,244 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