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

Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner

This case concerns two New York City law firms, Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer and Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman, seeking damages from various transit unions and their officers following the April 1980 transit strike. The plaintiffs alleged several common-law causes of action, including prima facie tort and public nuisance, claiming economic losses due to the unlawful strike. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of the complaints. It ruled that while the Taylor Law does not prevent private damage actions, it also does not create a new statutory right to sue. Ultimately, the court concluded that the specific common-law claims were either not recognized under New York law or were insufficiently pleaded.

Public Employee StrikeTaylor LawPrivate Right of ActionPrima Facie TortPublic NuisanceIntentional Interference with BusinessThird-Party BeneficiaryUnion LiabilityCommon-Law RemediesLegislative Intent
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laverack & Haines, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns an age discrimination complaint filed by employee George Burns against his former employer, Laverack & Haines, Inc., following the elimination of his job during company downsizing. The State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) and the Appellate Division initially ruled in favor of Burns. However, the New York Court of Appeals reversed, finding that while Burns established a prima facie case of age discrimination, the employer successfully rebutted it by demonstrating that the termination was due to severe economic downturns and the elimination of the Claims Manager position across all branch offices. The Court emphasized that an employer is not legally obligated to create new positions or displace other employees to retain a terminated employee due to economic restructuring. Consequently, the Court granted the employer's petition, annulled the SDHR determination, and dismissed Burns's complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationCompany DownsizingEconomic ConditionsPrima Facie CaseEmployer RebuttalNon-discriminatory ReasonHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewNew York Court of Appeals
References
9
Case No. 2:16-cv-3974
Regular Panel Decision

Burns v. Cnty. of Nassau

The Court addressed a motion to dismiss based on the first-filed rule, involving two collective actions, Burns et al v. County of Nassau et al and Arciello et al v. County of Nassau et al, both concerning similar wage and hour claims against the County. While finding the first-filed rule applicable due to substantial overlap in parties and claims, the Court denied dismissal. Instead, to prevent prejudice to plaintiffs regarding the statute of limitations, and to conserve judicial resources, it ordered the consolidation of the Burns action with the Arciello action. All future proceedings for the consolidated case will occur under the Arciello case number.

Collective ActionFirst-Filed RuleConsolidationMotion to DismissOverlapping ClaimsJudicial EconomyStatute of LimitationsEastern District of New YorkFair Labor Standards ActWage and Hour
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns Electric Co. v. Walton Street Associates

This appeal addresses whether a contractor, Burns Electric Co., Inc., can compel a developer, Walton Street Associates, to allow inspection of its books and records under Lien Law § 76. Walton, a vendee in possession of property owned by the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency (SIDA), argued it was an 'owner' and the project a 'public improvement', exempting it from such demands. The court held that while SIDA, as a public agency, is immune, Walton acts as a 'contractor' by engaging subcontractors for the improvement, despite also being an 'owner'. Therefore, Burns is entitled to inspect Walton's financial records to ensure trust funds are used to pay improvement costs. The Special Term's order permitting the relief requested was unanimously affirmed.

Lien LawPublic ImprovementPrivate ImprovementContractor StatusOwner StatusVendee in PossessionTrust FundBooks and Records InspectionMechanics' LienIndustrial Development Agency
References
12
Case No. ADJ1136513
Regular
Feb 13, 2018

FRANCISCO BAUTISTA vs. SMITHS GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP

This case concerns applicant's entitlement to extended temporary disability benefits beyond 104 weeks for a severe burn injury under Labor Code § 4656. The Appeals Board rescinded the trial judge's findings, remanding the case for further proceedings. This decision focuses on whether the applicant's burn injury, considering treatment, resulting disability (including psychiatric sequelae), and residual permanent disability, qualifies as "severe" under the statute. The Appeals Board clarified that the severity analysis must encompass the overall impact of the burn, not just the initial injury.

Labor Code Section 4656temporary disabilitysevere burnshigh-velocity eye injuryflash fireburn injurydepth of injurysequelaehyperpigmentationscarring
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00187
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2024

McGlynn v. Burns & Harris, Esq.

In this legal malpractice action, William McGlynn sued attorneys Burns & Harris, Esq., and Allison R. Keenan for failing to notify insurance carriers in a prior personal injury case, preventing him from collecting a judgment. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing judicial estoppel applied due to McGlynn's workers' compensation claim with an inconsistent injury theory. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied McGlynn's cross-motion to strike their answer for spoliation of evidence. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the summary judgment for the defendants, finding that multiple proximate causes for injuries are possible and the judicial estoppel doctrine might not preclude recovery. The court affirmed the denial of McGlynn's cross-motion for spoliation of evidence, determining he failed to show an obligation to preserve the evidence or a culpable state of mind.

legal malpracticesummary judgmentjudicial estoppelspoliation of evidenceproximate causeinsuranceappellate reviewattorney's dutycausationdamages
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2006

Burns v. Cook

Plaintiff Debra A. Burns brought an action against Oren F. Cook, the Adirondack Central School District Board of Education, and the Adirondack Central School District. Her claims included violations of federal and state laws related to free speech retaliation, substantive due process, equal protection, the ADA, New York Civil Service Law § 75-b, defamation, property interests, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss for the ADA claim (due to untimeliness), defamation, damage to property interests and professional reputation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss for the free speech retaliation, substantive due process, equal protection, and New York Civil Service Law claims, allowing these to proceed.

First Amendment RetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAmericans with Disabilities ActCivil Service LawEmployment DiscriminationPublic Employee RightsFreedom of SpeechMedical ConfidentialityMotion to Dismiss
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seventh Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v. Anchor Packing Co.

The provided text outlines a legal decision in the case of Constance F. Polito against several defendants, including Burns International Services Corporation, Daimler-Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation. The plaintiff's husband died from mesothelioma, allegedly due to asbestos exposure from the defendants' brake products. The court ruled on three motions in limine. The first two motions, seeking to exclude evidence related to workers' compensation claims, plant conditions, and documents from industrial health associations, were denied. The court found this evidence relevant to the defendants' knowledge of asbestos risks. The third motion, aimed at excluding deposition testimony and an affidavit from expert witness Ralph A. Froehlich, was granted, as the court deemed them inadmissible hearsay and rejected the argument of adoptive admissions.

AsbestosMesotheliomaMotions in LimineWorkers Compensation ClaimsPlant ConditionsHearsayExpert WitnessAdoptive AdmissionsState-of-the-Art EvidenceBrake Products
References
11
Case No. ADJ3722656 (BAK 0145213)
Regular
Jul 24, 2014

WILLIAM CASTO vs. GENE WATSON CONSTRUCTION, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY BY CHARTIS

This case concerns an applicant suffering severe burns who sought further temporary disability (TD) indemnity after the initial award expired. The Appeals Board overturned the WCJ's 104-week TD cap, finding the 240-week cap for severe burns applicable, extending TD entitlement to August 6, 2007. The Board also adopted the WCJ's calculation of the third-party credit but clarified its application based on the established total civil damages and defendant's comparative negligence. Consequently, the award was amended to reflect the extended TD period and the 240-week statutory cap.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent and StationaryLabor Code Section 4656104-week cap240-week capSevere BurnsSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,825 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