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. 2020 NY Slip Op 01036 [180 AD3d 515]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2020

Ortiz v. Mar-Can Transp. Co., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting defendants Mar-Can Transportation Co., Inc. and Ramonita Matos' motion to renew their summary judgment motion and dismiss the complaint. The court found the lower court properly exercised its discretion in granting renewal to correct a procedural error, as defendants had a right to enforce a prior preclusion order against the plaintiff, Rosalinda Ortiz. Defendants also made a prima facie showing that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, establishing that Ortiz was Mar-Can's special employee at the time of the bus accident. Since Ortiz was precluded from submitting opposition, the dismissal was proper.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial Employee DoctrineSummary Judgment RenewalProcedural Error CorrectionPreclusion Order EnforcementAppellate ReviewEmployment LiabilityBus Accident ClaimsNew York Appellate DivisionCivil Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barker v. Heekin Can Co.

Linda Barker filed a workers' compensation action against her employer, Heekin Can Company, for a back injury suffered in 1984. The complaint was filed in 1985 after settlement negotiations broke down regarding notice of injury. Heekin Can moved to dismiss for insufficiency of process, arguing it had sold its plant to Peacher Schwank Plastics and service was improper. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding Heekin Can waived its right to challenge service due to lack of specificity in its initial motion and delayed pleading of facts, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationService of ProcessSummary JudgmentWaiver of DefenseNotice RequirementsCivil Procedure RulesCorporate Successor LiabilityAppellate ReviewRemandAffirmative Defense
References
2
Case No. 12 Civ. 8456
Regular Panel Decision

Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

Plaintiffs, including Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. and Micah Z. Kellner, challenged the construction of the 91st Street Marine Transfer Station (MTS) in New York City. They alleged that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) improperly issued a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit by failing to conduct an adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), consider alternatives, or sufficiently address impacts after Superstorm Sandy. Additionally, Plaintiffs claimed the City of New York and its Department of Sanitation denied them equal protection, and Asphalt Green Inc. alleged breach of contract, trespass, and private nuisance. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, affirming that the Corps’ permit issuance was rational, its environmental review was adequate, and its considerations of alternatives, mitigation, and post-Sandy impacts were sufficient. All of Plaintiffs' claims, including constitutional and state law claims, were dismissed with prejudice.

Environmental LawClean Water Act (CWA)National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Waste ManagementMarine Transfer StationJudicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Summary JudgmentFlood RiskSuperstorm Sandy
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1987

Truran v. Otis Elevator Co.

The plaintiff, an employee of American Can Company, sustained personal injuries from a door manufactured by Otis Elevator Company and subsequently initiated a lawsuit against Otis. Otis Elevator Company then filed a third-party action against American Can Company, seeking contribution and indemnification. American Can Company moved for summary judgment, asserting that Connecticut law and its Workers’ Compensation Act barred such third-party actions against employers. The Supreme Court, Putnam County, denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that there was a triable issue as to whether Otis’s claim was predicated on an independent duty owed by American Can Company to Otis, which could overcome the workers' compensation exclusivity. Furthermore, the court noted that American Can Company possessed essential facts subject to discovery, warranting its continued involvement in the action.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' CompensationIndemnificationContributionSummary JudgmentConnecticut LawExclusivity ProvisionInterlocutory AppealProcedural Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1989

People v. Hagi

The case involves Maik Dahir Hagi, convicted of attempted murder in the second degree for stabbing Osman Nur Hussein. The incident occurred after an argument outside a social club, where Hagi allegedly chased and stabbed Hussein multiple times. Hagi claimed self-defense, stating Hussein initiated the attack with a trash can and a knife, and the stabbing was accidental during a struggle. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the People's evidence strong and persuasive, and rejected Hagi's challenges regarding jury instructions on justification and prosecutorial misconduct. The jury found Hagi intended to kill Hussein.

Attempted MurderSecond Degree MurderStabbingSelf-DefenseJury InstructionsJustification DefenseProsecutorial MisconductWitness ImpeachmentCredibilityConsciousness of Guilt
References
15
Case No. 2017-06-2203
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2020

Shelton, Bethany v/ Hobbs Enterprise, LLC

The Court held a compensation hearing to determine if Ms. Shelton is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for a shoulder injury she allegedly suffered while emptying a trash can at work. Ms. Shelton had a pre-existing car accident injury and sought treatment from Dr. Trung Nguyen and later Dr. Sean Kaminsky. Dr. Kaminsky performed surgery and assessed a five-percent impairment. However, his testimony on causation was deemed speculative, as he could not definitively state that the employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury. The Court concluded that Ms. Shelton failed to meet the burden of proof, denied her request for relief, and dismissed her claim with prejudice.

Shoulder InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausationMedical TestimonyPreponderance of EvidenceDegenerative ConditionCar AccidentRotator Cuff TearImpairment RatingClaim Dismissal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lyle v. Exxon Corp.

Charles M. Lyle, a 65-year-old service station attendant, suffered a back injury on September 6, 1985, while lifting a trash can at work for Exxon Corporation. He was diagnosed with spinal stenosis, a condition aggravated by the incident, leading to a laminectomy. The employer, Exxon, and its insurer, Petroleum Casualty Company, appealed the chancellor's finding of a 60% permanent partial disability, arguing untimely notice of injury and improper expert testimony. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the delay in notice was reasonable due to Lyle's initial lack of knowledge that his injury was work-related, and that allowing the vocational expert to testify was within the chancellor's discretion. The Court also upheld the disability finding.

Permanent partial disabilityTimely noticeSpinal stenosisVocational disabilityMedical expert testimonyDiscovery abuseContinuanceTennessee appellate procedureWork-related injuryLumbar laminectomy
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1995

Keating v. Cookingham

Plaintiff Lawrence D. Keating, a laborer, sustained a back injury while emptying what he described as wet, heavy construction debris from two garbage cans. He initiated an action against the defendant homeowners, alleging negligence for overloading the cans. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, a decision affirmed upon reconsideration. The appellate court upheld this ruling, noting the defendants successfully demonstrated the construction debris was not theirs and that the plaintiff was aware of the cans' excessive weight and had safe options, including assistance from a co-worker or leaving overly heavy cans.

Personal InjuryNegligence ActionSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewBack Injury ClaimMunicipal OrdinancesResidential Property LiabilityThird-Party LitigationDuty of CareHazardous Condition
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moss

Defendant Robert Moss, charged with methamphetamine offenses, moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence. He claimed the search warrant was based on evidence from illegal trash searches, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Officer Bryan Harris conducted multiple trash searches after an anonymous tip, finding items associated with methamphetamine manufacturing. The court examined the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and the principles established in *Katz v. United States* and *California v. Greenwood* regarding the expectation of privacy in discarded trash. The motion was denied, as the court ruled that individuals lose any reasonable expectation of privacy in trash once it is placed for collection at the designated time, regardless of its location within the curtilage.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressTrash SearchExpectation of PrivacyCurtilageAbandoned PropertyCriminal ProcedureMethamphetamineDrug Offenses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abreu v. Colvin

This case involves plaintiffs Indiana Abreu and her children seeking child's insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, challenging the Commissioner's denial. The central issues are whether a DNA test can overcome the presumption of paternity in New York law and if the children can be 'deemed' the wage earner's children despite contrary biological evidence. The Magistrate Judge found that while DNA evidence can rebut the presumption of legitimacy under New York intestacy law, the children are deemed eligible for benefits due to a Family Court order requiring the deceased wage earner, Santiago Martinez, to pay child support. This order, establishing a support obligation, is considered conclusive evidence of a parent-child relationship for Social Security Act purposes, irrespective of biological paternity. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, the Commissioner's cross-motion for remand is denied, and the case is remanded solely for the calculation of benefits.

Social Security ActChild's Insurance BenefitsPaternity PresumptionDNA TestingEquitable EstoppelChild Support OrderIntestacy LawDeemed Child StatusAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals Council
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 993 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