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
Oct 11, 1972

Claim of Palmer v. Candies

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision, filed May 12, 1972, and amended October 11, 1972. The central issue was the use of the appropriate multiplier for compensation benefits under subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Law, specifically challenging the Board's use of a 245 multiplier under subdivision 3. The employer's factory closed three months annually, leading the claimant to work approximately 167 days in the preceding year. The Board concluded that neither subdivision 1 nor 2 applied, prompting the resort to subdivision 3. The appellants contended that subdivision 3's 200-day multiplier was a maximum, a contention rejected by the court, which clarified that 200 is a minimum. The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawWage CalculationMultiplierSection 14Subdivision 3Appellate ReviewCompensation BenefitsSeasonal EmploymentDaily MultiplierLegal Interpretation
References
1
Case No. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision

Testerman v. Zielinski

The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic LawAutomobile AccidentExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 01-17-0002-1912
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 ("Local 3") sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an arbitration initiated by defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The arbitration concerns a work stoppage and alleged violation of a no-strike clause. The court denied Local 3's motion, ruling that Local 3 failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because it chose not to participate in the arbitration and could later challenge any adverse arbitral award in court. The decision emphasized that the monetary cost of arbitration alone does not constitute irreparable injury and highlighted the importance of demonstrating actual harm.

Arbitration StayPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseIrreparable HarmArbitrabilityFederal Court ProcedureJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between Local 3 and Charter Communications regarding a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The core issue is whether Local 3 members were bound by a CBA provision requiring arbitration of disputes during a strike in March 2017. The court found that Local 3's conduct, including signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), ratifying it, accepting improved wages and benefits, and utilizing grievance and arbitration procedures for almost two years, manifested an intent to be bound by the no-strike and arbitration provisions. Despite previous NLRB decisions regarding the inclusion of riders in the CBA, the District Court determined that the parties' actions indicated a binding agreement on the no-strike and grievance terms. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Charter, and arbitration was ordered.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActContract LawIntent to be BoundUnion DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silverman v. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

The National Labor Relations Board ("Board") sought a preliminary injunction against Local 3 under Section 10(Z) of the National Labor Relations Act, alleging illegal secondary boycott activity. The Board contended that Local 3 caused Central Financial Systems, Inc. ("CFS") to discharge an employee for working alongside British Telecom ("BT") employees, in violation of the Act. Local 3 denied attempting to prevent CFS from working with BT, only objecting to its members working "side by side" with BT employees. The court, presided over by District Judge KRAM, denied the Board's petition, concluding that the injunctive relief was not "just and proper" due to the Board's unexplained delay of over three months in seeking the injunction. The court emphasized that such a delay undermined the urgency required for extraordinary equitable relief and indicated a reduced need for speedy action, thereby denying the petition without reaching the merits of the unfair labor practice claim.

Preliminary InjunctionNational Labor Relations ActSecondary BoycottUnfair Labor PracticeEquitable ReliefLachesDelay in Seeking InjunctionPublic InterestLabor LawUnion Dispute
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This motion concerns plaintiffs' request to hold Harry VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena. The underlying action involves accusations of a conspiracy to prevent the sale of electrical products. During proceedings before a Special Master, VanArsdale, Jr., as business manager of the Union, refused to produce a complete file of 'Allied Union News' issues despite a validly issued subpoena duces tecum. The court acknowledges the refusal was not contumacious but legally incorrect. Consequently, the court finds both VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3 in contempt and orders the production of the requested documents, suspending punishment and costs contingent on their compliance.

Contempt of CourtSubpoena Duces TecumLabor UnionDiscoveryDocument ProductionSpecial MasterConspiracyInterstate CommerceRefusal to ComplyCourt Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Wolfson

The claimant, a school teacher, appealed a December 3, 1975 decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a referee's determination that he was ineligible for Special Unemployment Assistance benefits due to not being totally unemployed. Despite working only 10 months, the claimant was paid a 12-month salary, with payments for July and August 1975 deferred until December. He contended that these months did not constitute a paid vacation period under Labor Law § 591(3) because payment was delayed beyond 30 days. However, the court disagreed, citing precedent that teachers paid annually for 12 months are not considered totally unemployed during their non-working months, irrespective of the payment schedule. The court further held that Labor Law § 591 does not apply to situations where a claimant's salary is based on a 12-month period and paid for each of those months. Finding substantial evidence to support the board's determination, the court affirmed the decision.

Unemployment InsuranceSpecial Unemployment Assistance ProgramTotal UnemploymentSchool TeacherPaid VacationLabor Law § 59112-month SalaryBenefit EligibilityAppeal Board DecisionAffirmed Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lalla v. Astoria Air Conditioning

Claimant, an air-conditioning repairman, developed an occupational lung disease. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found chronic obstructive and restrictive bronchopulmonary disease under Workers’ Compensation Law § 3 (2) (29), making the Special Disability Fund liable. The Fund later challenged this finding, requesting a reclassification under Workers’ Compensation Law § 3 (2) (30), which would discharge its liability. The Workers’ Compensation Board granted the Fund's application, reclassified the disease under section 3 (2) (30), and discharged the Fund. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision, arguing the Board abused its discretion and that there was insufficient evidence for the reclassification. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the Board's continuing jurisdiction and discretion, and finding substantial medical evidence to support the reclassification.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BoardSpecial Disability FundLiability ReclassificationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseBronchopulmonary DiseaseAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. 535144
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Hope Jennings

Hope J. Jennings, a supermarket clerk, sustained a work-related shoulder injury in 2007, leading to established workers' compensation benefits. She was classified with a nonschedule permanent partial disability in 2012, subject to a durational cap for wage loss benefits, which expired in November 2018. Following a causally-related cervical fusion surgery in July 2019, claimant sought temporary total disability benefits, arguing these should not count towards the permanent partial disability cap. The Workers' Compensation Board, on full Board review, rescinded an earlier decision and ruled that the expiration of the durational cap did not preclude claimant from seeking temporary total disability benefits after subsequent surgeries. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that temporary total disability benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (2) are distinct from permanent partial disability benefits under § 15 (3) (w) and are not subject to the latter's durational caps.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityDurational CapWage Loss BenefitsCervical Fusion SurgeryShoulder InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 15
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,871 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