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

Allison Gammons v. City of New York

This is a dissenting opinion arguing that Labor Law § 27-a (3) (a) (1), the "general duty" clause, is too broad to serve as a predicate for a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action without citing a specific regulation. The dissent contrasts this general provision with more specific legal duties found in previously cited cases like Gonzalez v Iocovello and Cosgriff v City of New York, which involved Vehicle and Traffic Law or local administrative codes. It emphasizes that plaintiffs should be required to identify specific rules or regulations that were violated, similar to the requirements for Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. The dissenting judge suggests remanding the case to consider the applicability of a specific Occupational Safety and Health Act provision, 29 CFR 1910.23 (c) (1), which the plaintiff also asserted. The order, insofar as appealed from, was affirmed by the majority.

Dissenting OpinionLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawWorkplace SafetyGeneral Duty ClausePredicate for LiabilityPolice Officer InjuryOccupational Safety and Health ActStatutory InterpretationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1981

Donovan v. Blasters, Drillrunners & Miners Union, Local No. 29

The Secretary of Labor initiated an action against Local 29 under the LMRDA, challenging the results of an April 1980 supervised election. The Secretary sought to nullify the election and mandate a new supervised election, alleging a violation due to an employer's contribution for campaign materials. Local 29 cross-moved for certification of the election results, while an unsuccessful candidate, Smith, moved to intervene. The court denied all motions, citing the Secretary's unexplained eleven-month delay in seeking relief as a failure to act "promptly" under § 482(c). Although a technical violation was acknowledged, the court emphasized the importance of expeditious resolution in union election disputes and denied intervention due to the denial of the Secretary's motion and other factors.

Union electionsLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Employer contributionsElection supervisionTimelinessInterventionUnion democracyElection irregularitiesStatutory interpretationCampaign finance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2010

Blyer v. ONE STOP KOSHER SUPERMARKET, INC.

Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of NLRB Region 29, petitioned the District Court for interim relief against One Stop Kosher Supermarket, Inc. under 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). The Director sought an order compelling One Stop to bargain with Local 338, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, after One Stop failed to honor a recognition agreement. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found the recognition agreement binding. The District Court granted the petition, finding reasonable cause for unfair labor practices and irreparable harm to the Union's collective bargaining rights, ordering One Stop to provide information and bargain, but stipulating that any agreement not be implemented until the NLRB's final decision.

National Labor Relations BoardUnfair Labor PracticesInterim InjunctionCollective BargainingUnion RecognitionLabor LawDistrict CourtSection 10(j)Employer-Union RelationsMandatary Injunction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castleberry v. Hudson Valley Asphalt Corp.

This case concerns an application by a plaintiff, injured in 1973, for the apportionment of attorney's fees incurred in a third-party action. The plaintiff, who receives weekly workers' compensation benefits from Utica Mutual Insurance Co., secured a $75,000 settlement after an initial judgment was set aside on appeal. The central issue was whether the compensation carrier, Utica Mutual, should bear the full amount of the attorney's fees for the $75,000 settlement, thereby vacating its $20,402 lien. The court, exercising its discretion under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29, determined that since the entire settlement benefited the carrier by reducing its future obligations, the carrier should be responsible for all attorney's fees, and its lien was consequently vacated.

Attorney's Fees ApportionmentLien VacationThird-Party SettlementInsurance Carrier LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Subrogation RightsEquitable ApportionmentJudicial DiscretionStatutory BenefitWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cruz v. City of New York Department of Children's Services

Claimant, injured in an automobile accident while working, received workers' compensation benefits and later settled a third-party action. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the self-insured employer was not entitled to offset the third-party settlement against a schedule loss of use (SLU) award, even for the portion initially designated as temporary total disability. The employer appealed, arguing the offset was permissible because the weekly award exceeded statutory thresholds for basic economic loss. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that a schedule loss of use award is not allocable to any specific period of disability and thus is not subject to offset under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 against first-party benefits, regardless of initial labeling or monthly rate.

Schedule Loss of Use Award OffsetThird-Party SettlementTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityBasic Economic LossNo-Fault LawInsurance LawStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Appellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Infrastructure Repair Service, LLC

This court opinion addresses motions concerning expert testimony and the amendment of a bill of particulars in a construction site injury case. The defendant, Infrastructure Repair Service, LLC (GC), sought to preclude the plaintiff's expert engineer, Harlan Fair, from testifying on legal conclusions regarding violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) or OSHA regulations, which the court largely granted while allowing testimony on factual matters. The plaintiff cross-moved to amend his bill of particulars to include a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 (d) under Labor Law § 241 (6), which was denied due to the regulation's inapplicability to the use of an open tar bucket. However, the plaintiff's cross-motion to include violations of specific OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1926.16, 1926.28, 1926.102) was granted. The court applied the multi-employer doctrine, finding the GC potentially liable for safety conditions affecting subcontractor employees, especially since the GC provided the safety equipment.

Expert WitnessMotion PracticePleadings AmendmentConstruction AccidentWorkplace InjuryLabor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200OSHA StandardsGeneral Contractor ResponsibilitySubcontractor Employees
References
65
Case No. ADJ7905931 (MF) ADJ8066878
Regular
Jun 08, 2016

CARMEN FELIX vs. HORIZON HOBBY, THE HARTFORD

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the original findings to establish that Carmen Felix sustained a cumulative injury to her mid and low back arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period from September 29, 2009, to September 29, 2010. This injury was found not to be barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination claim due to the employer's prior notice. The Board also amended the findings to award temporary disability from September 29, 2010, to the present, requiring reimbursement of the EDD lien, and ordered further medical treatment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactBurden of ProofCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryPost-Termination ClaimLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Transportation Union v. Bottalico

The United Transportation Union (UTU) sued several officers of its subsidiaries, GO-532 and Local 77, alleging breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) and breach of duties under the UTU constitution. Defendants moved to dismiss both claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court, presided over by District Judge Mukasey, found that unions do not have a private right of action under 29 U.S.C. § 501, thus granting the motion to dismiss the first claim. However, the court determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over the second claim, which alleged violations of the UTU constitution as a contract between labor organizations under 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), and therefore denied the motion to dismiss that claim.

Union Fiduciary DutyLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Subject Matter JurisdictionImplied Private Right of ActionCongressional IntentCort v. Ash FactorsUnion OfficersBreach of Fiduciary DutyLabor Organization ContractsMotion to Dismiss
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 592 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