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

In re the Arbitration between Country-Wide Insurance & Manning

Daisy P. Manning, an employee of the Department of Transportation, was injured by an uninsured vehicle while driving a city-owned vehicle. She sought arbitration from her personal insurer, Country-Wide, which then moved to permanently stay arbitration. Country-Wide argued that the City of New York, a permissibly self-insured municipality, should provide primary uninsured motorist coverage. Judge Bloom dissents in part, agreeing with the necessity of reversal but advocating for a remand with specific directions to join the City of New York as a party. This would allow for a full determination of rights, particularly concerning the City's potential primary liability under uninsured motorist provisions and the exclusivity of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Uninsured Motorist CoverageWorkers' Compensation LawSelf-Insured MunicipalityStay of ArbitrationPrimary vs. Secondary LiabilityJoinder of PartiesVehicle and Traffic LawInsurance LawExclusive RemedyAppellate Dissent
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Insurance Fund v. Circus Man Ice Cream Corp.

The Commissioner of the State Insurance Fund, as plaintiff, initiated an action against Circus Man Ice Cream Corp. for unpaid workers' compensation premiums, contending that the company's ice cream truck drivers were employees and therefore subject to coverage. Circus Man disputed this, asserting the drivers were independent contractors. The plaintiff's premium calculation relied on an auditor's assumption of an employer/employee relationship, which the defendant challenged, providing evidence of the drivers' autonomy, including leasing trucks, purchasing supplies independently, and establishing their own territories. The court, applying the 'right of control' test and other factors, determined that the street vendors were indeed independent contractors. Consequently, the court found Circus Man Ice Cream Corp. not liable for the workers' compensation premiums sought by the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployee RelationshipPremium DisputeIce Cream VendorsRight of ControlAuditLease AgreementNew York LawState Insurance Fund
References
5
Case No. ADJ9607300
Regular
Feb 24, 2020

Danielle Manning vs. Conifer Health Solutions

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision regarding Danielle Manning's claim. While affirming the original decision, they amended its findings of fact. The Board specifically found that Manning sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to psych/stress. The issue of causation for alleged injuries to her right index finger and headaches remains deferred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportGrant ReconsiderationAmend DecisionAffirm DecisionAccounts Receivable CollectorPsych/Stress InjuryRight Index Finger InjuryHeadaches
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00122 [146 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

Nunez v. Park Plus, Inc.

Emilio Nunez was injured at a parking lot owned by DeSoto Parking, LLC, while employed by Little Man Parking, LLC, when a mechanical lift caused the amputation of his toe. DeSoto moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, contending Nunez did not suffer a grave injury and was its special employee, and that there was a written indemnity agreement with Park Plus, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, agreeing Nunez did not suffer a grave injury, but found factual issues regarding DeSoto being an alter ego of Little Man Parking, LLC, and the existence of an indemnity agreement. It also concluded DeSoto failed to establish Nunez as a special employee.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAlter EgoIndemnification AgreementSpecial EmployeeToe AmputationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewParking Lot Accident
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06050 [209 AD3d 1233]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

Contractors Compensation Trust v. $49.99 Sewer Man, Inc.

Contractors Compensation Trust, a self-insured trust providing workers' compensation coverage, sued member Thos. H. Gannon & Sons, Inc. for unpaid deficit assessments. The defendant sought summary judgment, claiming the action was barred by a six-year statute of limitations, arguing the claim accrued upon the approval of the deficit assessment. Supreme Court partially denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that the cause of action accrued when the defendant failed to make payments according to the established payment plan on March 3, 2014, rather than the earlier assessment approval date. Consequently, the Appellate Division concluded that the action, initiated in December 2019, was timely.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insured TrustStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeficit AssessmentPro Rata PaymentAccrual DateSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird Department
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2011

Pierre v. Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home Co.

Plaintiffs, health care providers for defendant Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home (MMW), appealed an order that denied their motion for summary judgment and granted MMW's cross-motion, dismissing their complaint for breach of a pension agreement and violation of Labor Law § 198. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, modified the order, denying the cross-motion and remanding the case, finding that the lower court erred in concluding plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate. The court determined that an arbitration provision in an older collective bargaining agreement was not applicable to plaintiffs, whose employment was governed by a 2008 memorandum lacking such a clause. Defendants' claims of federal preemption and judicial estoppel were also rejected.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementLabor Lawfederal preemptionjudicial estoppelsummary judgmentcontract interpretationemployment disputepension agreementappellate decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laborers International Union of North America, Local 210 v. Shevlin-Manning, Inc.

The case involves an appeal concerning a special proceeding initiated to compel arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement. The appellate court found that Special Term erroneously applied the New York Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213) instead of the Federal law's six-month Statute of Limitations, as outlined in section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 USC § 160 [b]). This statutory period commences when an employer declines arbitration. In this specific case, the employer, Shevlin-Manning, refused arbitration on August 19, 1985, but the petitioner did not commence the proceeding until June 4, 1986, rendering it untimely. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously reversed on the law, and the petition was dismissed as time-barred.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementstatute of limitationsFederal lawNational Labor Relations Acttimelinessappeallabor disputedismissed petitioncontract enforcement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1999

Cruz v. Toscano

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, erred in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that factual issues regarding defendant Philip Toscano's supervision and control over renovation work, which could justify liability for plaintiff's injuries under Labor Law § 200, did not exist. There was no evidence that Toscano exercised supervision over plaintiff's use of the table saw, nor was the duty to provide a safe workplace breached, as the injuries arose from the employer's tools and methods. Furthermore, there was no evidence that defendants supplied the allegedly defective saw or had notice of its condition. Plaintiff also continued to use the saw despite being aware of its missing guard.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawWorkplace SafetyOwner LiabilityContractor MethodsSupervisory ControlDefective ToolsNotice of DefectPersonal InjuryNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2012

Kruk v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a lower court's decision granting summary judgment to the defendant. The case involved plaintiff Jose Kruk, who was injured while using a power saw and subsequently filed a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6). The defendant successfully argued that the saw was equipped with necessary protective guards as mandated by Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.12 (c) (1). Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding a defective guard or the necessity of a saw table. Consequently, the court found the defendant entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPower Saw InjuryIndustrial CodeProtective GuardsAppellate DecisionAffirmanceWorker SafetyConstruction AccidentStatutory Violation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 141 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