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

Case-Hoyt Corp. v. Graphic Communications International Union Local 503

Case-Hoyt Corporation initiated this action under the Labor Management Relations Act to vacate an arbitration award concerning the layoff of seventeen employees. The arbitrator, Jeffrey M. Selchick, Esq., had ordered Case-Hoyt to reinstate the employees and provide back pay, but the company refused to comply. The court, in a previous decision filed March 18, 1997, confirmed the arbitration award in its entirety. Subsequently, the Union moved to amend the judgment to secure additional make-whole relief for employees due to Case-Hoyt's continued non-compliance with the award. Chief Judge Larimer denied the Union's motion, clarifying that the initial confirmation of the arbitration award already implicitly required full compliance, including all necessary make-whole relief to restore the employees to their rightful position as if the award had been followed. The parties were ordered to calculate the owed payments within thirty days.

Labor LawArbitration AwardVacaturConfirmationMotion to Amend JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementReinstatementBack PayEmployer Non-ComplianceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation

This amended memorandum and order by District Judge Weinstein addresses motions to dismiss and to vacate consolidation in approximately 700 asbestos cases originating from both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. The court affirmed its subject matter jurisdiction over third-party contribution claims, applying 'ancillary' or 'supplemental' jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. It also upheld the consolidation of cases, ruling that cases pending in the Southern District should be transferred to the Eastern District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for efficiency and justice, effective nunc pro tunc. Finally, the decision emphasized the necessity of proper service of process for all parties, particularly regarding their due process right to participate in jury selection, especially in multi-phase trials.

Asbestos litigationMultidistrict litigationSupplemental jurisdictionAncillary jurisdictionCase consolidationVenue transferDue processService of processFederal Civil ProcedureThird-party practice
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyle v. Texasgulf Aviation, Inc.

This opinion by District Judge Goettel addresses motions within the long-standing "Texasgulf cases," stemming from a 1981 corporate aircraft crash, primarily focusing on a workers' compensation lien. Plaintiff Boyle moved to extinguish or reduce a lien held by Zurich-American Insurance Companies, while Texasgulf cross-moved to amend pleadings to join as a plaintiff to apportion damages under Connecticut law. The court determined that Connecticut law governs the workers' compensation lien issues for the Connecticut residents involved, denying the plaintiffs' request for New York law. However, Texasgulf's motion to amend its pleadings was denied due to undue and unjustified delay of over four years since a key jury finding establishing its corporate independence from TGA, and after all appeals and settlements had concluded. The court emphasized that allowing such a late amendment would be contrary to judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments, despite the ambiguity of Connecticut's statutory notice requirements.

Workers' Compensation LienChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawRule 15 AmendmentUndue DelayPrejudiceCorporate VeilWrongful Death StatuteAircraft Crash Litigation
References
24
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Case No. ADJ1174751 (SAC 0331800), ADJ6448656, ADJ6448658
Regular
May 22, 2008

LAWRENCE BURNELL vs. SOLANO GARBAGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration in one case (ADJ1174751) and denied it in two others (ADJ6448656 and ADJ6448658). For the granted case, the Board amended the decision to find no permanent disability due to a back injury, based on a later medical report that superseded an earlier one. Reconsideration was denied in the other two cases, as the defendant failed to prove overlap of disability for apportionment purposes as required by law. The Board affirmed the original decisions in ADJ6448656 and ADJ6448658.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSolano GarbageLawrence BurnellADJ1174751ADJ6448656ADJ6448658ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical Evaluator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1997

Napolitano v. Corp.

The defendant DGM-I Corporation appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint. The case involves a construction site accident where a worker sustained injuries after falling through a floor opening. The plaintiffs sought to add a cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court's decision to allow the amendment was upheld on appeal, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice or surprise from the delay. Furthermore, a prior order by Justice Colabella was not considered a bar to the amendment under the doctrine of law of the case.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Motion to AmendComplaintAppellate ReviewProcedural LawPrejudiceLaw of the CaseNew York
References
4
Case No. ADJ1003980 (SFO 0430815)
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ROBERT WYNNE vs. LUMEND, INC., HARFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY (KEMPER)

This case involved a clerical error in the caption of a previous Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board granted reconsideration to amend the April 4, 2011 decision nunc pro tunc. The amendment corrected the caption to include only the relevant case number, ADJ1003980 (SFO 0430815). No objections were received from the parties. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNunc Pro TuncReconsiderationAmend DecisionClerical ErrorCase CaptionAdministrative Law JudgePetition to ReassignTrial Level ProceedingsInsurer
References
2
Case No. ADJ2524386 (LAO 0803654) ADJ2571077 (LAO 0803655)
Regular
Oct 02, 2020

RAUL MARINO vs. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, BROADSPIRE

This case concerns a minor amendment to an already approved Compromise and Release agreement between Raul Marino and Coca-Cola Enterprises. The defendant sought to increase the net payment to the applicant by $47.14 and correct the date of injury for one of the cases. The applicant agreed to these changes, and the Board found them to be in the applicant's best interest. Consequently, the Board amended its previous decision to incorporate these agreed-upon modifications.

Compromise and ReleaseAmendmentNet Amount PayableDate of InjuryReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSelf-InsuredApplicantDefendantOpinion and Order
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 18,883 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