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. 01-42217-REG
Regular Panel Decision

Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.)

This document is a report and recommendation from Judge Robert E. Gerber concerning Ames Department Stores, Inc.'s motion to confirm exclusive jurisdiction in an adversary proceeding against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The proceeding, occurring under Ames' Chapter 11 bankruptcy, addresses the ownership of an $8 million trust account and alleged interference with the debtor's property. Judge Gerber recommends that the court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over all claims, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over specific claims involving automatic stay violations, marshaling, and equitable subordination. Furthermore, he advises that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not mandate deferral to an Illinois state court for these issues, and the First Assuming Jurisdiction Doctrine is applicable to certain in rem claims.

Bankruptcy LawJurisdictional DisputeExclusive JurisdictionAutomatic Stay ViolationMcCarran-Ferguson ActIn Rem JurisdictionAdversary ProceedingChapter 11 BankruptcySurety BondsCash Collateral
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ames v. Norstar Building Corp.

This dissenting opinion concerns the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim brought by plaintiff Leigh Ames, a construction worker who suffered injuries from a fall at an elevated work site. Justices Gorski and Lawton argue against the majority's decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment, asserting that defendants failed to demonstrate a prima facie showing for dismissal. The dissent contends that Ames's accident, involving a fall while attempting to access an elevated work area, falls under the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1), challenging the majority's conclusion that a doorway threshold is not an elevated work site. Citing numerous precedents, the dissenting justices maintain that the lack of appropriate safety devices for elevated access constitutes a violation of the Labor Law. Therefore, they advocate for denying summary judgment to the defendants and modifying the existing order.

Construction accidentElevated work siteSummary judgmentLabor Law violationDissenting opinionLadder safetyAccess to work sitePrima facie caseWorker protectionPersonal injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ames v. Group Health Inc.

Plaintiffs, including trustees John Ames and Michael Pantony of the United Welfare Fund-Welfare Division (UWF) and participant Fred Tremarcke, sued Group Health Incorporated (GHI) under ERISA and HIPAA. They alleged GHI illegally discriminated against Tremarcke by denying his health coverage after he went on disability leave, arguing it violated HIPAA's anti-discrimination provisions and breached the insurance policy. Tremarcke's employer, Classic Chevrolet, continued making health contributions on his behalf, and a 'Side Letter of Understanding' with his union attempted to maintain his 'active employee' status. The court ultimately ruled in favor of GHI, finding that Tremarcke did not meet the eligibility requirements of the UWF-GHI plan, which required working over 20 hours per week, and that the 'Side Letter' could not unilaterally alter GHI's contractual obligations. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing the second and third causes of action.

ERISAHIPAACOBRAHealth InsuranceDisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractMulti-employer FundCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi

Justice Froessel dissents, advocating for the modification of the lower court's order. The petitioner seeks to stay arbitration concerning a dispute stemming from nine identical franchise agreements. Justice Froessel argues that the clear language of these agreements, coupled with the absence of a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of consent and the specific nature of the agreements, grants the petitioner the right to refuse consent to their assignment, citing several cases including Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp. The dissenting opinion also asserts that the rule of good faith does not apply in this context. Consequently, it is argued that the portion of the dispute related to damages from the arbitrary withholding of consent to assignments is not arbitrable. Therefore, the orders of the court below should be modified to grant the petitioner's application to stay arbitration regarding the damages claim arising from the refusal to consent to the assignment of franchise agreements; otherwise, affirmed.

arbitration stayfranchise agreementsassignment of contractsconsent withholdingcontract interpretationgood faith rulenon-arbitrable claimsappellate reviewdissenting opinioncontractual rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2002

Claim of Estate of Lutz v. Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from two Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a waiver agreement. The decedent, Beverly Lutz, her employer, and carrier had a proposed settlement agreement that was filed but not yet approved when she died. The Board, through Commissioner Tremiti, refused to honor the agreement after the carrier and Special Funds withdrew their consent. Although an approval notice was mistakenly issued, the Board later corrected it, ruling the agreement was never approved. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to correct its error and that the withdrawal of consent by the carrier and Special Funds justified the disapproval of the agreement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementDeath BenefitsBoard ReviewJurisdictionConsent WithdrawalStatutory InterpretationRegulation ValidityAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement between a wealthy plaintiff (husband) and a defendant (wife). The defendant challenged the agreement, alleging overreaching and manifest unfairness during negotiations, while the plaintiff sought its enforcement. Although the motion court granted a trial on the maintenance waiver, it dismissed other counterclaims. Justice Feinman's dissent argues that summary judgment should be denied for all counterclaims, emphasizing the need for a full trial to assess the credibility of the parties and resolve material factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's conduct during negotiations and the agreement's potentially unfair terms, particularly highlighting the distinct legal standard of 'manifest unfairness' in marital agreements.

prenuptial agreementmarital agreementsummary judgmentunconscionabilitymanifest unfairnessoverreachingfiduciary dutyequitable distributionspousal maintenance waiverproperty distribution
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2006

In Re Northwest Airlines Corp.

Northwest Airlines Corporation and its affiliates (Debtors) filed a motion under § 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code to reject a collective bargaining agreement with the Professional Flight Attendants Association (PFAA) after PFAA's membership failed to ratify a negotiated agreement. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Allan L. Gropper, found that the rejection was necessary for the Debtors' reorganization. The court also determined that PFAA rejected the Debtors' proposal without good cause and that the balance of equities clearly favored rejection. Consequently, the court authorized the Debtors to reject the agreement and implement new terms, specifically those of the March 1 Agreement, with a fourteen-day stay to allow for further negotiation. This decision aims to facilitate the airline's financial restructuring and emergence from Chapter 11.

Bankruptcy LawCollective BargainingAirline ReorganizationLabor DisputeSection 1113 MotionUnion NegotiationsFlight AttendantsWage ConcessionsWork Rule ChangesGood Cause Standard
References
22
Case No. ADJ4013684 (OAK 0307613) ADJ620772 (OAK 0294537)
Regular
Jul 28, 2014

DANIEL GRANZELLA vs. RICHMOND SANITARY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought to be relieved from an agreed medical examiner (AME) agreement with Dr. Warbritton, alleging bias and ex parte communication. The Board found that the WCJ's order denying the motion to be relieved from the AME agreement was interlocutory and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board found no basis for removal, as the defendant failed to establish bias or irreparable harm, and their ex parte communication claim was waived by their delay in raising the issue after receiving further medical reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)BiasEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code § 5900Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive Right
References
11
Case No. ADJ9421326, ADJ9358335
Regular
May 06, 2016

IVY CHEN vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

This case involves a dispute over whether the parties mutually consented to cancel their agreement to use an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) for applicant Ivy Chen. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding the initial order non-final. The WCAB then granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board determined that while no explicit written cancellation existed, the parties' actions in jointly pursuing a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) constituted mutual consent to abandon the AME agreement.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4062.2(f)mutual written consentQualified Medical Examinerinterim orderfinal ordersignificant prejudiceirreparable harm
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Forum v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal concerning the legality of an agreement made by the New York City Transit Authority (Authority) with the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and Amalgamated Association (Amalgamated), granting them exclusive collective bargaining rights for hourly paid employees. The Civil Service Forum, a labor union, and its members, employees of the Authority, initiated a declaratory judgment action, arguing that these exclusive rights were unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Special Term initially granted the Authority and TWU's motions to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the Authority had the power under the Public Authorities Law to enter into such agreements. The court clarified that the agreement, while granting exclusive representation in grievance processing, still preserved individual employees' rights to present grievances and did not compel union membership. Ultimately, the court directed a declaratory judgment affirming the validity of the Authority's resolutions, election, agreements, and policy statements.

Labor LawCollective BargainingPublic AuthoritiesDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionGrievance ProceduresExclusive RepresentationTransit Authority
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 2,677 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