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. ADJ9310159
Regular
Apr 27, 2018

Kenneth Farias vs. AC TRANSIT, Administered by YORK RISK SERVICE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed AC Transit's petition for reconsideration of a stipulation and award due to a calculation error regarding permanent disability advances. The Board found that no evidence or testimony had been presented under oath to support AC Transit's claim of mutual mistake or the applicant's argument of unilateral mistake. Therefore, the matter was premature for reconsideration, and the case was returned to the Workers' Compensation Judge to schedule a hearing for evidence to be presented.

Stipulation and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationMutual MistakeUnilateral MistakeGood CauseSet AsidePermanent Disability AdvancesWCJAppeals BoardLabor Code Section 5313
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2001

Lamuraglia v. New York City Transit Authority

Vincenzo Lamuraglia, a construction worker, was injured after being struck by a New York City Transit Authority bus while working. He and his wife, Rosa Lamuraglia, sued the Transit Authority entities, which then initiated a third-party action against Vincenzo's employer, Premium Landscaping, Inc. A jury found the Transit Authority 65% at fault and Premium 35% at fault, awarding damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of services. The Supreme Court reduced some of these awards. On appeal, the judgment was modified, granting a new trial on damages unless the plaintiffs agree to further reductions in their awards for pain and suffering and loss of services. The appellate court also rejected the Transit Authority's arguments regarding jury instructions on pedestrian duty of care and the emergency doctrine.

Personal InjuryNegligenceDamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityComparative FaultWorkplace AccidentBus AccidentDuty of Care
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Straker v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Carl B. Straker, a former NYCTA train operator, challenged his termination following a mandatory drug test, alleging he was unable to provide a urine sample due to a medical condition. His amended complaint cited procedural due process violations (Count I), racial discrimination and conspiracy (Count II), misrepresentation by NYCTA (Count III), and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (Count IV) against NYCTA, plus a breach of fair representation (Count V) against the Transit Workers Union. The court dismissed Count I, dismissed Count II with leave to amend, denied dismissal for Counts III and IV while demanding a more definite statement for Count III, and denied TWU’s motion to dismiss Count V, reinterpreting it as a state law claim. Metropolitan Transit Authority, though named, was dismissed as a party due to non-existence.

Employment DiscriminationProcedural Due ProcessRacial DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActConspiracyDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintDrug Testing
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Samuelsen v. New York City Transit Authority

The case concerns a dispute between Local 100, Transport Workers Union of Greater New York (the Union) and the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Authority (MaBSTOA). The Union challenged a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a consolidation agreement that aimed to merge MaBSTOA and TA surface transit operations, arguing that these agreements violated Public Authorities Law § 1203-a (3) (b). This law prohibits MaBSTOA employees from becoming, 'for any purpose,' employees of the TA, acquiring civil service status, or becoming members of NYCERS. The Union contended that the agreements effectively made MaBSTOA employees into TA employees, thereby violating the statute. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the validity of the agreements and procedural defenses. The motion court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed this decision, agreeing with the Union's interpretation of the statute and finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action.

Workers' RightsCollective BargainingStatutory InterpretationPublic Authorities LawCivil ServiceEmployment LawUnion DisputeConsolidation AgreementEmployer LiabilityDismissal Reversal
References
3
Case No. ADJ9859155
Regular
Dec 03, 2016

WILLIAM LEE vs. AC TRANSIT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a Petition for Removal concerning William Lee's case against AC Transit. The Board rescinded an Order Limiting Subpoena Duces Tecum issued on August 16, 2016. The matter has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the workers' compensation administrative law judge.

Petition for RemovalOrder Limiting Subpoena Duces TecumRescindedTrial LevelFurther ProceedingsDecision After RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAC TransitYork Risk Services
References
0
Case No. ADJ7449511
Regular
Dec 10, 2015

ANITA MORRIS vs. AC TRANSIT

This case involves a bus driver, Anita Morris, awarded 53% permanent disability for an industrial injury. The employer, AC Transit, petitioned for reconsideration, arguing the applicant did not properly rebut the diminished future earning capacity component of the award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the prior award. This action was taken to allow parties to address the impact of a recent appellate court decision, *Contra Costa County v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Dahl)*, on the case's disputed issues. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPermanent DisabilityDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECScheduled RatingRebuttedVocational Expert
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05446 [152 AD3d 530]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2017

Matter of Transit Workers Union, Local 100 v. New York City Tr. Auth.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment that denied the petition of Transit Workers Union, Local 100, and nonparty Victor Martinez to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award upheld the termination of Victor Martinez's employment as a bus driver by the New York City Transit Authority due to an incident. The court found that the arbitration award was rational, supported by evidence, and did not violate strong public policy or exceed the arbitrator's power. The penalty of termination was also deemed not irrational.

Arbitration AwardEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 75Arbitrator's PowerPublic PolicyBus Driver MisconductRationality Standard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. 02 Civ. 7659(SAS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. NYC Transit Auth.

This case involves a dispute between several labor unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary regarding the legality of NYCTA's sick leave policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unions challenged the policy's medical inquiry requirements, arguing they violated ADA provisions against inquiries that may reveal a disability. The NYCTA justified its policy by citing the need to curb sick leave abuse and ensure workplace and public safety. The court applied the framework established in Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services. It found that curbing sick leave abuse was a legitimate business necessity but only justified the policy for employees on a narrowly-defined "sick leave control list." The court also determined that ensuring safety was a vital business necessity, justifying the policy for safety-sensitive employees, specifically bus operators, but required further factual development for other employee groups. Ultimately, the court issued a declaratory judgment, clarifying the permissible scope of the policy's medical inquiries and rejecting the Authority's defenses of unclean hands and laches.

ADA ComplianceSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiryEmployment DiscriminationBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyPublic SafetyLabor Union LitigationCollective BargainingBus Operator
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transit-mix Concrete Corp. v. Local Union No. 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America

Transit-Mix Concrete Corporation and Local Union No. 282, parties to collective bargaining agreements, had a dispute regarding seniority rights of former Colonial Sand and Stone Co. Inc. drivers after Transit-Mix acquired Colonial's assets. An arbitrator's 1979 award on employee seniority was later found by the NLRB and Second Circuit to have been improperly communicated by Local 282, leading to a breach of its duty of fair representation. Consequently, Local 282 was ordered to request reopening the arbitration to provide notice and a retroactive grace period for affected employees. Transit-Mix sought to stay this arbitration, arguing against reopening a final award and raising procedural defenses like statute of limitations and laches. The court, emphasizing the broad arbitration clause in their agreements, denied Transit-Mix's petition to stay and granted Local 282's cross-petition to compel arbitration, deferring the merits and procedural questions to the arbitrator.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority DisputeDuty of Fair RepresentationNLRB OrderLabor-Management DisputesArbitration EnforcementJudicial Review of ArbitrationFederal Labor LawUnion Liability
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 588 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