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

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1981

Lanza v. Quebec & Ontario Transportation Co.

A longshoreman (plaintiff) was injured in 1977 while working on the defendant's vessel. He subsequently settled a federal workers' compensation claim with his employer's carrier in 1978; however, no formal compensation order was filed, although a claims examiner's letter acknowledged the settlement. In 1979, the plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant, who moved for summary judgment contending the complaint was time-barred under 33 U.S.C. § 933(b), which mandates third-party actions within six months of settlement. Special Term initially denied the defendant's motion, but the appellate court reversed this decision. Citing a precedent, the court held that the claims examiner's letter functioned as an 'award in a compensation order,' thereby triggering the statute of limitations, and rendering the plaintiff's action time-barred.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationLongshoremanFederal LawThird-Party ActionSettlementCompensation OrderAppellate ReviewReversal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mott v. ITT Industries

A claimant, who performed clerical duties for the employer for over 27 years, was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 2006 and applied for workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the disallowance of the claim as time-barred pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, noting that despite the claimant's prior awareness of work-related symptoms, the Board failed to establish the crucial date of disablement. Without this finding, the conclusion regarding the claim being time-barred could not be supported. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementAppellate ProcedureClaim DisallowanceReversalRemittiturLegal InterpretationCausation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hazzard v. Adams Russell Cable Services

Claimant, a line technician, sustained a left knee injury in January 1987 but did not file a workers' compensation claim until August 1995. The employer's carrier argued the claim was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, a contention upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Board. On appeal, the claimant argued that a C-4 medical report from 1987 or an advance payment of compensation should have prevented the claim from being time-barred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no evidence that the C-4 report was filed with the Board within the two-year statutory period, nor that the employer or carrier made an advance payment to waive the statute of limitations.

Workers' CompensationTime-barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsAdvance PaymentMedical ReportBoard AffirmationAppellate ReviewKnee InjuryLine Technician
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2001

Fishman v. Mills

Petitioners Michael Fishman, president of a union, and American Building Maintenance Company of New York appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their CPLR article 78 petition as time-barred. The case stemmed from the award of a cleaning contract to respondent Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc. as a preferred source provider, displacing American Building's workers. Petitioners challenged Fedcap's qualification, alleging it employed individuals not 'severely' disabled as required by State Finance Law § 162. The Supreme Court found the proceeding untimely, ruling that the challenge to Fedcap's preferred source provider status became final and binding by August or September 1999, well before the October 2000 commencement. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding the core challenge was to Fedcap's initial qualification, not later contract approvals, thus rendering the proceeding time-barred.

Administrative LawTimelinessStatute of LimitationsCPLR Article 78Preferred Source ProviderDisabled EmploymentGovernment ContractsPublic ProcurementUnion RightsContract Award
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Time Moving & Storage

Plaintiff Leonor Dátil Perez, acting pro se, sued Time Moving & Storage for $3.9 million in property damage to her newspaper collection, allegedly due to the defendant's negligence. A key dispute arose regarding the presence of Joseph Candella, a principal of Time Moving, during the deposition of the defendant's employees. The motion court initially barred Candella from the depositions, citing plaintiff's claims of intimidation. However, the Appellate Division reversed this order, ruling that the plaintiff's assertions did not meet the 'unusual circumstances' standard required to exclude a party from a deposition under CPLR 3103(a). The court emphasized a party's right to be present per CPLR 3113(c) and Candella's role in assisting counsel and trial strategy.

DepositionsWitness ExclusionCorporate RepresentationPro Se LitigantCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCPLR 3113CPLR 3103IntimidationDiscovery Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Guardian Purchasing Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in May 1988, for which benefits were approved. In November 2002, while working for a different employer, claimant developed neck pain and sought to reopen the 1988 case to include this new injury. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the application to reopen was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, and the carrier was discharged from liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that a 1989 medical report was not timely filed nor sufficient to constitute a claim for neck injury. Additionally, the claimant failed to substantiate the assertion that the carrier waived the statute of limitations through an advance payment.

Time-barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNeck Injury ClaimBack InjuryMedical Report SufficiencyAdvance Payment of CompensationWaiver of LimitationsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08595 [156 AD3d 1043]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Any-Time Home Care Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator for a dissolved self-insured trust, initiated an action to recover a $133 million cumulative deficit from former trust members. Various defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting claims were time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations for statutory liabilities, failed to adequately state claims against individual partners, and were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the claims were contractual, subject to a six-year limitation period, and that laches did not apply against the state enforcing a public right. The court also found the complaint sufficiently specific regarding the liability of individual defendants.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance TrustJoint and Several LiabilityStatute of LimitationsContractual LiabilityLaches DoctrineAppellate ReviewGroup Self-InsurerDeficit RecoveryPartnership Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 5,836 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