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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This action was initiated by Local 197 against Local 1, alleging breach of contract based on violations of the Constitutions of the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (BCTC), as well as their respective jurisdictional dispute resolution plans. Local 197 sought partial summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn. Conversely, Local 1 sought summary judgment to dismiss the entire suit, arguing that Local 197 lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that the state law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that Local 197 was an incidental, not intended, beneficiary of the BCTD Constitution and National Plan, and that Local 1's disaffiliation from the BCTC removed its obligations to the New York Plan. Additionally, the court ruled that Local 197's state law claims for tortious interference were preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

Labor LawJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party BeneficiaryNLRA PreemptionUnion AffiliationCollective BargainingAFL-CIO ConstitutionLocal Union Rights
References
26
Case No. 08-23-00001-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2023

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Araceli Ortiz Galindo, an employee of A-1 Freeman Moving & Storage, LLC, filed a negligence claim against her employer and A-1 Freeman North America Inc. after a workplace accident. The A-1 Freeman entities sought to compel arbitration based on a 'Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate' (MAA) and several signed acknowledgments. Galindo opposed, arguing the MAA was illusory, she never received a copy, and one acknowledgment was signed under duress. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration without specifying reasons. The appellate court found the MAA was not illusory due to a savings clause. It concluded Galindo received unequivocal notice of the mandatory arbitration plan with A-1 Freeman Moving & Storage, LLC through a signed Notice of Employment Application, and thus erred in denying arbitration for this entity. However, the court affirmed the denial of arbitration for A-1 Freeman North America Inc., as no evidence supported its inclusion in the arbitration agreement or its status as a 'related company' to compel arbitration as a non-signatory. The case is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementInterlocutory AppealMotion to Compel ArbitrationNegligence ClaimWorkplace AccidentIllusory ContractSavings ClauseUnequivocal NoticeEmployment ArbitrationNon-Signatory
References
36
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01255 [158 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2018

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Juan Pena, an injured worker, sued Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust Number 1 and Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) under Labor Law § 240 (1) after sustaining injuries from a fall off an unsecured and wobbling ladder. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Pena partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against SGI. SGI appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Pena's deposition testimony sufficiently established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that SGI failed to raise a triable issue of fact, particularly regarding the provision of adequate safety devices or whether Pena was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Ladder accidentUnsecured ladderFall from heightConstruction site accidentAppellate decisionPrima facie caseTriable issue of factProximate cause
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01287 [214 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

John Mora, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife, sued 1-10 Bush Terminal Owner, L.P. after he fell from a ladder during demolition work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendant appealed this decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240 (1)Proximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work SitesSafety Devices
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. Action No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. 01-17-00516-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2017

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The order addresses an appeal where appellant Mark Allen Oliver, incarcerated and claiming indigence, has not arranged to pay for the reporter’s record. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston instructs the appellant on the proper procedure for proceeding without paying appeal costs. According to TEX. R. CIV. P. 45 and TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, the appellant must file a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs in the trial court. The appellant is ordered to file this form within 14 days and request the trial court clerk to prepare and file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the Statement of Inability form.

IndigencyCourt CostsAppeal CostsStatement of InabilityAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureIncarcerated LitigantTexas Court of AppealsRules of Civil ProcedureRules of Appellate Procedure
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00602
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Claimant Michael Storms sustained work-related injuries, and his employer, Boces Erie No. 1, continued wage payments during his disability. The employer, however, failed to file a timely request for reimbursement of these wages. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially credited the employer for wages paid, but the claimant disputed this entitlement. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified the decision, ruling that the employer had waived its right to reimbursement due to the untimely filing. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that formal requests are necessary and a belated oral reference was insufficient.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementWage PaymentsTimelinessAppellate ReviewWCLJ DecisionBoard ModificationWaiver of RightsDisability BenefitsEmployer Obligation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 1947

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for injunctive relief against Local 1, alleging violations of Section 8(b), subsection (4)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition was based on charges filed by Schenley Distillers Corporation and Jardine Liquor Corporation. A temporary restraining order was initially granted on December 11, 1947, after a hearing. However, upon further hearing on December 16, 1947, the court found a significant change in the factual situation, noting that the labor difficulties had been adjusted and the danger of irreparable damage was no longer present. Consequently, the court vacated the temporary restraining order, stating that it would not pass upon the ultimate merits of the issues at that time.

Injunctive ReliefLabor RelationsNational Labor Relations ActTemporary Restraining OrderVacated OrderUnfair Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottLabor DisputeFederal CourtDistrict Court
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves an appeal concerning the obligations of the State Insurance Fund under insurance policies. The Bryam Hills Central School District No. 1 sought a declaratory judgment to compel the State Insurance Fund to defend actions initiated by Dorothy G. Caruolo. The initial Supreme Court judgment had granted summary judgment to the school district, mandating the State Insurance Fund to provide a defense. The appellate court modified this judgment, affirming the State Insurance Fund's duty to defend the first Caruolo action due to sufficient general negligence allegations, thereby invoking policy coverage. However, the court reversed the requirement to defend two other actions seeking salary and benefits, as these claims were rooted in contract and expressly excluded by the policy, negating any duty to defend in those specific instances.

Insurance Policy ObligationsDuty to DefendDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ExclusionWorkers' Compensation ImplicationsNegligence ClaimsInsurance Coverage DisputeSupreme Court Appeal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,742 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