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

Whisenhunt v. Sylvania Corp.

This wrongful death action arises from the death of J.W. Whisenhunt in a pipeline accident in New York in 1979. His widow, as administratrix of his estate, brought suit against several corporations and individuals, alleging negligence and violations of safety codes. The defendant corporations moved to dismiss certain causes of action, contending they were time-barred under New York's two-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff argued for the application of Arkansas's three-year statute of limitations, citing its substantive nature. The court applied New York's conflict of laws rules, determining that New York's substantive law, including its statute of limitations, should govern. Consequently, the court granted the defendant corporations' motion to dismiss specific causes of action. Wilson's separate motion to dismiss other causes of action related to an easement was denied due to insufficient evidence.

Wrongful DeathConflict of LawsStatute of LimitationsDiversity JurisdictionErie DoctrineChoice of LawGrouping of ContactsLex Loci DelictiNew York LawArkansas Law
References
21
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. 97 Civ 00731
Regular Panel Decision

Tanges v. Heidelberg North America, Inc.

This case involves a products liability lawsuit filed by Tanges, a New York resident, against Heidelberg et al. in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, after sustaining serious injuries from a printing press bought by his employer, Danbury Printing and Litho, Inc., in Connecticut. Danbury Printing intervened as a plaintiff seeking recovery for workers’ compensation payments. The central issue, certified by the Second Circuit to the New York Court of Appeals, is whether Connecticut General Statutes § 52-577a, which includes a 10-year statute of repose, bars Tanges’s claim. The New York Court of Appeals determined that § 52-577a is part of Connecticut's substantive law under New York's choice of law principles because it prevents a cause of action from ever arising after the repose period. Consequently, the Court held that the Connecticut statute applies and bars Tanges’s claim, answering the certified question in the affirmative.

Products LiabilityStatute of ReposeStatute of LimitationsChoice of LawConnecticut General StatutesCPLRSubstantive LawProcedural LawCertified QuestionConflict of Laws
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Hatfill v. Foster

This decision and order revisits the choice of substantive law in a libel case filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against Conde Nast Publications, Donald Foster, and The Reader's Digest Association, concerning articles published about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially, the court had determined Virginia law applied. However, after further jurisdictional discovery revealed that plaintiff Hatfill had made misrepresentations about his domicile, the court reversed its prior ruling. It concluded that Hatfill was domiciled in Washington D.C. at the time of the articles' publication, and therefore, Washington D.C. law will govern the substantive issues for all defendants. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why their pro hac vice status should not be revoked due to these alleged misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding their client's domicile.

LibelDefamationChoice of LawDomicile DeterminationJurisdictional DiscoveryMisrepresentation to CourtPro Hac Vice RevocationForum ShoppingSingle Publication RuleConflict of Laws
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1982

Taylor v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital

The plaintiff, an employee, filed a lawsuit against St. John's Episcopal Hospital for wrongful discharge and against District 1199 union for breach of its duty of fair representation, nearly two years after his 1979 termination. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the action was time-barred. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their motion, applying a six-year Statute of Limitations for contract actions. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the action, governed by Federal substantive law under the Labor Management Relations Act, was subject to a six-month Federal Statute of Limitations, and thus the plaintiff's complaint was indeed time-barred.

wrongful dischargefair representationStatute of LimitationsLabor Management Relations Actcollective bargaining agreementFederal preemptionappealtime-barredFederal courtsState courts
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Harry Winston, Inc.

Plaintiff George Curtis, a former manager for defendant Harry Winston, Inc. in Venezuela, sued the New York-based company for unpaid vacation bonuses, severance, and interest under Venezuelan labor law, as well as breach of employment contract regarding relocation expenses and an annual bonus. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing Venezuelan law was contrary to New York policy and contract claims were barred by the Statute of Frauds. The Southern District of New York, applying New York's conflict of laws rules, determined that Venezuelan substantive law would govern the statutory claims, upholding subject matter jurisdiction and the principles of international comity. The court also found New York law applicable to the contract claims but ruled that the Statute of Frauds did not bar them, as the at-will employment agreement could have been performed within one year. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.

Conflict of LawsDiversity JurisdictionVenezuelan Labor LawStatute of FraudsEmployment ContractMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionComityChoice of LawForeign Law Enforcement
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1994

Claim of Boshart v. St. Francis Hospital

The claimant, a hospital employee, stopped working due to an aggravated preexisting back condition and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Her claim was initially denied, but a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found prima facie medical evidence for an occupational back condition. Upon appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board rejected the employer's contention that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, ruling the employer had waived this defense. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer failed to raise the Statute of Limitations defense at the first hearing where all parties were present, thereby waiving the right to assert it.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsWaiverOccupational DiseaseBack InjuryEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewProcedural DefenseInsurance ClaimBoard Decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,579 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