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

Feltman v. Kossoff & Kossoff LLP (In re TS Emp't, Inc.)

The case involves a Chapter 11 Trustee, James S. Feltman, for TS Employment, Inc. (TSE), who filed a second amended complaint against Kossoff & Kossoff LLP and Irwin Kossoff. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Trustee's claims were barred by the Wagoner rule, which typically prevents a bankrupt corporation from suing third parties for fraud if corporate managers assisted in the fraud. The core issue is whether the defendants qualify as 'non-statutory insiders' to bypass the Wagoner rule's application. The Trustee alleged that the defendants effectively acted as TSE's CFO or Treasurer, controlling financial reporting and accounting, despite lacking formal titles. The Court, reviewing the allegations, concluded that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently pleaded facts to support the inference that the defendants were non-statutory insiders, exercising significant control over TSE's financial operations. Therefore, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the Trustee to proceed with the case.

Bankruptcy LawMotion to DismissWagoner RuleInsider ExceptionNon-Statutory InsiderFiduciary DutyCorporate ControlAccounting FraudChapter 11Trustee Standing
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bright-Asante v. Saks & Co.

Plaintiff Michael Bright-Asante brought an action against Saks & Company, Inc., Theo Christ, and Local 1102, alleging employment discrimination, breach of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), retaliation, and constructive discharge. The court addressed three motions: Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, Saks' motion for sanctions, and Saks' motion to compel arbitration and/or dismiss the complaint. The court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and Saks' motion for sanctions, citing that the motion to amend was not "utterly lacking in support." Saks' motion to compel arbitration for the breach of CBA claim was granted, while arbitration for statutory discrimination claims was denied, as the CBA did not clearly mandate it. Finally, the court granted Saks' motion to dismiss the race discrimination (NYCHRL) and retaliation (NYLL) claims but denied the motion to dismiss the constructive discharge claim, finding sufficient facts for the latter.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationConstructive DischargeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementRule 15 MotionRule 11 SanctionsRule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissSection 1981NYCHRL
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2004

Claim of Pace v. Concepts in Wood of CNY, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 1, 2004. The Board's decision had ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The appellate court reviewed the claimant’s procedural arguments against the Board's decision, ultimately rejecting them as unfounded. Key points addressed included the authority of a reconstituted three-member Board to issue an amended decision reversing itself, which the court affirmed by referencing relevant Workers’ Compensation Law sections. Furthermore, the court dismissed the claimant's concerns regarding the staleness of reports from an independent medical examiner, clarifying that unlike treating physicians, independent medical examiners are not subject to statutory or regulatory requirements for routine progress reports. Consequently, the amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationBoard Decision AppealProcedural ArgumentsAmended DecisionIndependent Medical ExaminerMedical ReportsStalenessCompensable InjuryNew York LawStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 17 NY3d 238
Regular Panel Decision

The People v. Jarrod Brown

Judge Read's dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of CPL 440.46, as amended by Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2011. The majority expanded resentencing eligibility to include parolees due to a name change from 'Department of Correctional Services' to 'Department of Corrections and Community Supervision'. Read contends that this amendment was merely a technical change reflecting an agency merger, not a substantive legislative intent to broaden resentencing relief, which should remain limited to incarcerated persons as per the original 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. The dissent emphasizes that statutory text should be interpreted within its context, highlighting that the 2011 amendment was part of an article VII budget bill for restructuring and technical corrections, not substantive law changes. Therefore, Read believes the legislature did not intend to expand the ameliorative sweep of the provision.

Resentencing EligibilityCPL 440.46Drug Law Reform ActParoleesIncarcerated PersonsStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentChapter 62 Laws of 2011Technical AmendmentSubstantive Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyle v. Texasgulf Aviation, Inc.

This opinion by District Judge Goettel addresses motions within the long-standing "Texasgulf cases," stemming from a 1981 corporate aircraft crash, primarily focusing on a workers' compensation lien. Plaintiff Boyle moved to extinguish or reduce a lien held by Zurich-American Insurance Companies, while Texasgulf cross-moved to amend pleadings to join as a plaintiff to apportion damages under Connecticut law. The court determined that Connecticut law governs the workers' compensation lien issues for the Connecticut residents involved, denying the plaintiffs' request for New York law. However, Texasgulf's motion to amend its pleadings was denied due to undue and unjustified delay of over four years since a key jury finding establishing its corporate independence from TGA, and after all appeals and settlements had concluded. The court emphasized that allowing such a late amendment would be contrary to judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments, despite the ambiguity of Connecticut's statutory notice requirements.

Workers' Compensation LienChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawRule 15 AmendmentUndue DelayPrejudiceCorporate VeilWrongful Death StatuteAircraft Crash Litigation
References
24
Case No. AHM 0118031; AHM 0118045; AHM 0118046; AHM 0118048; AHM 0118050; AHM 0118332
Regular
May 13, 2008

NHIEN TRAN vs. CARGOTEC, INC., EMPLOYERS SELFINSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an award of $\$ 2,217.50$ for medical treatment, finding the original decision supported by substantial evidence including an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion and fee schedule limitations. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's amended petition for reconsideration as untimely filed, noting it was received after the statutory deadline. Furthermore, a supplemental amended petition was dismissed as unauthorized under Appeals Board rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings & Award & OrderAdministrative Law JudgeACOEM GuidelinesCompromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical ExaminerOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLabor Code section 4604.5
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levenson v. Lippman

This case addresses whether the Chief Administrative Judge exceeded his authority by amending 22 NYCRR 127.2 (b) to permit administrative judges to review and modify trial judges' awards of compensation to assigned counsel that exceed statutory limits. Plaintiffs, assigned counsel, challenged the amendment, arguing it unconstitutionally created an appellate court by transferring review power. The Supreme Court upheld the amendment, finding the Chief Administrative Judge acted within constitutional and statutory authority. The Appellate Division reversed, but this Court reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court's judgment. The Court affirmed that such compensation awards are administrative acts not subject to judicial review, and the amendment validly fills an administrative gap, thus upholding the Chief Administrative Judge's regulatory power.

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawJudicial AdministrationAssigned CounselAttorney FeesAppellate JurisdictionRulemaking AuthorityChief Administrative JudgeTrial CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. No. 92 CV 1258
Regular Panel Decision

Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary

The plaintiffs, Haitian Service Organizations and Haitian individuals, commenced a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Government following the 1991 Haitian military coup. They alleged violations of First and Fifth Amendment rights, statutory rights to counsel, failure to adhere to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures, arbitrary and capricious agency action, breach of the non-refoulement duty, and equal protection violations due to a separate asylum track for Haitians. The Government moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the Government's motion in part, dismissing claims related to the extraterritorial application of the statutory right to counsel and the failure to follow APA rulemaking procedures, but denied the motion for all other claims, including those based on the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, arbitrary and capricious action, non-refoulement, and equal protection.

Asylum LawRefugee ActImmigration and Nationality ActFirst AmendmentFifth AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAdministrative Procedure ActClass ActionDeclaratory Relief
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Powell v. N.C.A. Operating Corp.

The claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his applications to reopen his claim. The injury occurred in December 1962, with the final lump sum payment of benefits made in September 1969. The claimant's subsequent applications to reopen, filed in January 1983 and December 1986, were deemed untimely by the Board. The court affirmed this decision, referencing Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, which stipulates an 18-year limitation from the injury date or an 8-year limitation from the last compensation payment. Both of the claimant's applications were filed beyond these statutory periods.

Workers' Compensation AppealClaim ReopeningStatute of LimitationsTimeliness DenialLump Sum SettlementWorkers’ Compensation Law Section 12318-year Statute of Limitations8-year Statute of LimitationsFinal Payment DateInjury Date
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,624 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