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. 2024 NY Slip Op 04102
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2024

Powerflex Solar, LLC v. Solar PV Pros, LLC

Plaintiff Powerflex Solar, LLC appealed two orders from Supreme Court in Albany County. The first order partially granted motions by defendants Solar PV Pros, LLC (SPVP) and EoS Organization, LLC to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction regarding agreements for solar modules to be delivered to Rhode Island and California, and for failure to state claims for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary and conversion against EoS. The second order adhered to the prior decision upon reargument. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no articulable nexus between the New York agreements and the Rhode Island and California agreements for personal jurisdiction. The court also agreed that plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the Meitus-EoS agreements and failed to state a claim for conversion due to lack of identifiable funds.

Personal JurisdictionContract LawThird-Party BeneficiaryConversionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJurisdictional NexusDelaware LLCCalifornia LawSolar Modules
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance v. Great American E&S Insurance

Plaintiff Ethical Culture Fieldston School (ECF) and Tishman, the project manager, were named additional insureds on Solar's general liability policy with Great American. Solar employee, Lisa Best, was injured on site. While Solar filed workers' compensation, notice to Great American about Best's personal injury lawsuit against Tishman and ECF, and Solar's subsequent impleading, was delayed. Tishman and ECF sought a declaratory judgment that Great American was obligated to defend and indemnify them, and Solar cross-claimed. Great American moved for summary judgment, asserting untimely notice. The court found Solar's delay of over a year in notifying Great American was untimely and that Solar's belief of nonliability was unreasonable, especially given its contractual indemnification obligations. Consequently, Great American was not obligated to provide coverage to Solar in the underlying action.

Insurance Coverage DisputeTimely Notice RequirementCondition PrecedentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured StatusConstruction Site Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2011

Tptcc Ny, Inc. v. Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs TPTCC NY, Inc., The Proton Institute of New York, LLC, and N.Y. Medscan LLC sued defendants Norton Travis, Radiation Therapy Services Inc. (RTSI), Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Cicero Consulting Associates VCC, Inc., New York Proton Management LLC (NYPC), Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., and 21st Century Oncology, LLC. Plaintiffs alleged federal antitrust, federal copyright, and various New York state law claims, contending a conspiracy to exclude them from the New York City market for Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) services and misappropriation of their business plan. The court dismissed the antitrust claims, applying the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and finding a lack of antitrust injury. Copyright claims were dismissed because the business plan lacked creativity for copyright protection and was jointly authored. State law claims, including breach of joint venture, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, were also dismissed due to various legal deficiencies, such as the absence of a joint venture, the public disclosure of alleged trade secrets, and the lack of a fiduciary relationship. The court reaffirmed its order granting defendants' motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, directing entry of final judgment for the defendants.

Antitrust LawCopyright LawTrade SecretsUnfair CompetitionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractJoint VentureNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSherman ActNew York Common Law
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lew v. Radiation Dynamics, Inc.

Samuel Lew sued his former employer, Radiation Dynamics, Inc. (RDI), alleging national origin discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Lew, a naturalized American citizen of French origin, claimed he was discriminated against due to his French accent and subsequently terminated after complaining about a discriminatory remark by his supervisor. RDI moved for summary judgment, asserting Lew failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the discrimination claim and that his termination stemmed from poor performance. The Court granted summary judgment for RDI on the national origin discrimination claim, finding Lew's allegations primarily focused on retaliation rather than direct discrimination. However, the Court denied RDI's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim and its motion to limit damages, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the pretextual nature of Lew's termination, including disputed examination scores and performance evaluations. The case will proceed to trial on the retaliation claim.

Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964National Origin DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingEEOC ExhaustionTemporal Proximity
References
39
Case No. ADJ6722603
Regular
Jun 16, 2010

TONY PEAK vs. REC SOLAR, PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY c/o AARLA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Tony Peak v. REC Solar and Praetorian Insurance Company. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasons provided in the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) report. This order formally denies the reconsideration of the prior decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration deniedWCJ reportAdministrative law judgeADJ6722603ADJ6722349REC SolarPraetorian Insurance CompanyAARLATony Peak
References
0
Case No. ADJ14099837; ADJ18327322
Regular
Aug 21, 2025

ROBERT SCHLIESMANN vs. SOLAR OPTIMUM DESIGN AND ELECTRICAL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant, Robert Schliesmann, sustained an injury to his lumbar spine, lower extremities, left leg, and bilateral feet while employed as a solar tech. The case was initially dismissed due to the applicant's perceived inaction. However, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) vacated the dismissal, finding that the defendant failed to comply with the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) requests for diagnostic testing and documents, thereby impeding the QME process. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for substantial justice and the defendant's duty to conduct a reasonable and timely investigation of claims.

PQMEAdjudication NumbersFindings and OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 5803Good CauseOrder of DismissalPetition to ReopenRescind
References
5
Case No. ADJ17298965
Regular
Apr 28, 2025

SETH FRANKLIN vs. CITY OF REDLANDS, ADMINSURE

Applicant Seth Franklin, a police officer, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that denied his claim for industrial injury in the form of melanoma. The WCJ initially found applicant was not entitled to the cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, concluding that the WCJ erred. The Board determined that applicant, as a police officer, was exposed to solar radiation (a known carcinogen) and his melanoma developed or manifested during his employment, thus entitling him to the cancer presumption. The case has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if the presumption can be rebutted.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionpolice officermelanomaindustrial injurycarcinogensolar ultraviolet radiationlatency periodrebuttal of presumptioncumulative trauma
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lahrick L.

Lahrick L., a five-month-old infant, suffered extensive first and second-degree burns while in the custody of the respondents. The petitioner presented prima facie evidence of child neglect based on these injuries. The respondents claimed the child rolled off a bed and came into contact with a hot radiator. However, Dr. Moohr, a pediatrics expert specializing in child abuse burn injuries, refuted this explanation, stating the burn patterns were inconsistent with radiator burns and more consistent with hot liquid splatter. Additionally, a caseworker testified that the radiator in question was cold and inoperable on two separate visits in January 1985. The dissenting judge, Eiber, J., found the respondents' explanation factually insufficient to rebut the petitioner's prima facie showing of neglect and argued that the record contained ample evidence to support a finding of child neglect, urging for a finding of guilt and remittal for a dispositional hearing.

child neglectburn injuriesprima facie evidenceexpert medical testimonydiscrediting parental explanationcircumstantial evidenceFamily Court Actdissenting opinioninfant injuriesburden of proof
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hock v. Builtland Partners

Louis Hock, a window cleaner, was injured while attempting to exit a seventh-floor window at 335 Madison Avenue, owned by Builtland Partners and managed by Cushman and Wakefield, Inc. He fell when a radiator cover he was using to step onto gave way. Plaintiffs, Louis and Janice Hock, filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court reviewed the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for gravity-related accidents if proper safety devices are not provided. The court determined that Hock's accident fell within the ambit of the statute, as he was not provided with a safe means to overcome the elevation differential to access his work platform. The collapse of the radiator cover highlighted the lack of a required safety device. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants.

Scaffold LawAbsolute LiabilityElevation Related HazardGravity Related InjuryWindow Cleaning AccidentRadiator Cover CollapseProximate CauseNondelegable DutySummary JudgmentWorker Safety
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First District Dental Society v. Sencer

The petitioners, dental societies in New York City, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge a directive from the New York City Department of Health. The directive, dated August 14, 1981, mandated that all radiation installation licensees, including dental offices, make complete copies of Article 175 of the New York City Health Code available for staff examination. Petitioners argued this requirement was arbitrary and capricious due to its impracticality, financial burden, and the existence of an alternative provision allowing a descriptive notice. Respondents defended the directive as a rational measure to protect public health and ensure worker instruction regarding radiation safety, aligning with state and federal regulations. The court, applying the standard for administrative review, found a rational basis for the Department's interpretation and upheld the directive, denying the petitioners' request for nullification, though a 60-day stay on enforcement was granted.

Radiation SafetyHealth CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewDental PracticesRegulatory CompliancePublic HealthArticle 78 ProceedingsAgency InterpretationDirective Challenge
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 34 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