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
Sep 09, 1998

In re the Claim of Peabody

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed on September 9, 1998, which ruled that the claimant was not entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. This denial was based on Labor Law § 591 (5), a 1996 amendment that limits unemployment benefits when a claimant also receives workers' compensation benefits exceeding their average weekly wage. The claimant contended that the statutory limitation should consider the pre-injury weekly wage used for workers' compensation. However, the Board, and subsequently the court, found no textual basis to interpret 'average weekly wage' in Labor Law § 591 (5) differently from its definition in Labor Law former § 590 (2). Consequently, the Board's conclusion was affirmed.

Unemployment benefitsWorkers' compensation offsetStatutory interpretationAverage weekly wage calculationBenefit eligibilityLabor Law § 591(5)Appeal Board decisionJudicial reviewAffirmed decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Salvet v. Union Carbide Linde Division

Claimant sustained two compensable injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1983 with a nonschedule award of $95 per week. Subsequently, in 1984, the claimant was diagnosed with a 24.2% occupational binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule award of $105 per week for 36.3 weeks. The Workers' Compensation Board, following an application by the carrier, reduced this schedule award to $10 per week. This reduction was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a), which sets a maximum of $105 per week for compensation for permanent or temporary partial disability, indicating that the aggregate of both awards should not exceed this statutory limit. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory maximum applies to the total of all permanent partial disability awards, irrespective of whether they are schedule or nonschedule awards.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational Hearing LossSchedule AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory MaximumAggregate AwardsWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatutory InterpretationConcurrent Awards
References
6
Case No. SRO 0132158, SRO 0135138
Regular
Aug 10, 2007

CATHY CASAZZA vs. PETALUMA SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case clarifies that the two-year limit for temporary disability payments under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) begins when payments are first made, not when the disability is owed. The Appeals Board held that for concurrent injuries to the same body part, the 104-week limit runs concurrently, not consecutively, from the first payment date. Furthermore, the Board rescinded the estoppel finding, ruling that an employer's statutory right to review medical treatment requests does not preclude them from asserting statutory payment limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetaluma School DistrictRESIGIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryCumulative TraumaTemporary Total DisabilityLabor Code Section 4656(c)(1)Compensable WeeksTwo-Year Limit
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03093
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2018

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This case addresses the applicable statute of limitations for no-fault claims against a self-insured entity. The Court of Appeals determined that the three-year statute of limitations under CPLR 214 (2) governs such claims, as the obligation to provide no-fault benefits by a self-insurer is statutory rather than contractual. This decision reversed the Appellate Division, which had applied a six-year statute of limitations based on a contractual nature. The Court clarified that in the absence of a private insurance contract, the self-insurer's liability for first-party benefits is wholly statutory. The ruling impacts procedural aspects without altering the substantive no-fault obligations of self-insurers.

Statute of LimitationsNo-Fault InsuranceSelf-Insurer LiabilityCPLR 214 (2)CPLR 213 (2)Statutory ObligationContractual ObligationFirst-Party BenefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentsAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2001

Zeides v. Hebrew Home for Aged At Riverdale, Inc.

The court considered an appeal from an order denying the defendant's summary judgment motion, which sought to dismiss a complaint as time-barred. Plaintiff had alleged violations of the Public Health Law, ordinary negligence, and wrongful death against the defendant nursing home, stemming from a patient's injuries including pressure sores and inadequate nutrition. Defendant argued the claims were medical malpractice, subject to a 2½-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a), while plaintiff asserted the statutory claim fell under a 3-year period (CPLR 214 [2]). The court modified the decision, allowing the defendant to renew its motion after further discovery, acknowledging the need for more facts to determine the appropriate statute of limitations for the various claims. A dissenting opinion questioned the majority's decision to independently address the statutory cause of action's limitation period.

statute of limitationssummary judgment motionPublic Health Lawnursing home negligencemedical malpracticeordinary negligencewrongful deathdiscovery processcomplaint amendmentpatient rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2004

Foote v. Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership

Glenn A. Foote, Jr., an employee, sustained injuries when a wood chip stacker collapsed at the Lyonsdale Cogeneration Facility. He and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 against the facility owners (Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership and Moose River Energy, Inc.), the stacker designer (American Bin & Conveyor), and the procurer (Wolf & Associates). The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment to Lyonsdale and Wolf, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Lyonsdale and the negligence claim against Wolf. On cross-appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the injury resulted from the structure's collapse rather than the failure of a safety device. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claim against Wolf due to the absence of a duty to the plaintiff, and found a question of fact existed regarding Lyonsdale's supervisory control, thus denying summary judgment to Lyonsdale on other claims.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceElevated Work SiteScaffold LawWood Chip StackerDesign DefectSupervisory ControlContractual Obligation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership

Jose Verdugo, a food service deliveryman, was injured in December 2003 and received workers' compensation benefits. He also initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) later determined that Verdugo's disability ended on January 24, 2006, leading to the termination of his benefits. Subsequently, the defendants in the personal injury action sought to preclude Verdugo from relitigating the duration of his disability, arguing collateral estoppel based on the WCB's finding. The court, affirming the WCB's decision, reversed the Appellate Division's order, granting the defendants' motion to preclude further litigation on disability beyond the WCB's determined date, finding the issue was fully and fairly litigated.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPersonal Injury ActionCollateral EstoppelAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardDisability DurationMedical TreatmentLost EarningsMedical ExpensesGuardianship Proceeding
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plains/Anadarko-P Ltd. Partnership v. Coopers & Lybrand

The case involves three limited partnerships suing Coopers & Lybrand over allegedly false financial statements audited by Coopers for Trans-Western Exploration, Inc. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the first claim concerning fraud by accountants, finding the pleading sufficient. However, the second claim, mirroring the first with additions of aiding and abetting and fiduciary duty, was dismissed as redundant. Five pendent state law claims were also dismissed due to discretionary pendent jurisdiction. Finally, an eighth claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was dismissed for insufficiency, as the auditing engagement did not satisfy the statutory requirements for conducting an enterprise or a pattern of racketeering. The plaintiffs were ordered to serve and file an amended complaint.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b)Securities fraudSection 10(b) claimAiding and abettingFiduciary dutyPendent jurisdictionState law claimsRICO ActAuditing engagement
References
3
Case No. ADJ4647589
Regular
Dec 10, 2019

ORIS PAYTON vs. CAL EXPO FAIRGROUNDS, CALIFORNIA FAIR SERVICES AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant sought further physical therapy beyond the statutory limit of 24 visits. The WCAB adopted the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report, which concluded that the WCAB lacks the authority to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, including Labor Code section 4604.5, which limits physical therapy visits. Therefore, the applicant's request for treatment exceeding the statutory allowance was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryCumulative Work ActivitiesMedical TreatmentPhysical TherapyStipulationsAgreed Medical Examiner
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,651 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