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. ADJ3745795 (MON 0358797)
Regular
Jan 28, 2010

ROBERT JOHNSON vs. AUTOMATED TELLER ACCESSORIES CORPORATION, UEBTF

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Littler Mendelson's petition for reconsideration, amending the original award by deleting a finding of fact. The Board determined that Littler, as counsel for Automated Teller Accessories Corporation, failed to obtain proper withdrawal and did not provide adequate notice of non-appearance for trial. Consequently, the case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings regarding the reasonableness of Littler's absence and any potential sanctions, ensuring due process.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDAUTOMATED TELLER ACCESSORIES CORPORATIONUEBTFPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardWCJemployee statusfailure to appear at trialwithdrawal of counselUninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amity Leather Products Co. v. RGA Accessories, Inc.

Amity Leather Products Co. moved to hold RGA Accessories, Inc. in civil contempt for violating a prior injunction that prohibited RGA from using Amity's product photographs for its own competing products. Amity alleged RGA used a photo of its 'Macro bag' to promote the 'Petite Valise' through their joint venture, Smithy Accessories. The court found clear and convincing evidence of the violation, noting identical markings on the products in photographs. It rejected RGA's defenses of diligence and shifting blame to its joint venture partner. The court granted Amity's motion, ordering RGA to account for and pay profits from sales to J.C. Penney, cease further use of the promotional material, and issue a disclaimer to all recipients.

Contempt of CourtInjunction ViolationLanham ActFalse AdvertisingJoint Venture LiabilityCivil ContemptUnjust EnrichmentCease and DesistDisclaimerPhotographic Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GMA Accessories, Inc. v. DML Marketing Group, Ltd.

Plaintiff GMA Accessories, Inc. initiated a copyright infringement lawsuit against DML Marketing, Inc. and Bloomingdale’s, Inc., alleging that they marketed and sold "knock-off" versions of GMA's copyrighted "fuzzy monkey" socks. GMA subsequently moved to amend its complaint to include four additional corporate entities: The May Department Stores Co., Saks Inc., Federated Department Stores, Inc., and The Kroger Co., which were identified during discovery as having purchased and sold the infringing socks from DML. The court granted this motion to amend, concluding that the claims against all defendants arose from the same series of transactions and occurrences, and presented common questions of law and fact, thereby satisfying the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a). The defendants' objections regarding the appropriateness of joining parent corporations and jurisdictional matters were deemed premature, reserving these defenses for a later stage of the litigation. As a result, the existing answer from DML and Bloomingdale’s was applied to the newly amended complaint.

Copyright InfringementJoinder of PartiesFed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)Motion to Amend ComplaintProduct CounterfeitingRetailersIntellectual PropertyFederal Civil ProcedureJurisdictionDiscovery Phase
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2009

Johnson v. UniFirst Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Derrick Corporation, sustained injuries when his uniform, rented from UniFirst Corporation, caught fire. UniFirst, a defendant in the main personal injury action, filed a third-party complaint against Derrick for contractual indemnification. Derrick moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that its contract with UniFirst had expired at the time of the accident, thus barring indemnification under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied Derrick's motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and Derrick's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. The appellate court found UniFirst failed to provide statutory notice for automatic contract renewal under General Obligations Law § 5-903 (2).

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAutomatic Renewal ProvisionThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuryUniform FireEmployer LiabilityStatutory Notice
References
6
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Tredegar Corp.

Exxon Mobil Corporation sued Tredegar Corporation alleging breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Exxon claimed Tredegar failed to indemnify it for a settlement in an underlying personal injury action and failed to cooperate in Exxon's defense as per the APA. Tredegar filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, finding the indemnification provisions of the APA ambiguous regarding whether the liability was 'assumed' or 'retained'. However, the court largely denied the motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that Exxon plausibly alleged a breach of Tredegar's duty to cooperate and provide reasonable access to employees, with a partial grant for the records access claim under Section 12.7 of the APA.

asset purchase agreementindemnification clausebreach of contractduty to cooperatemotion to dismisscontract ambiguitycorporate acquisitionpre-closing occurrencespost-closing eventslitigation defense
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1987

Constantine v. Sperry Corp.

James Constantine, a passenger in a van leased by his employer Sperry Corporation, was injured when the van, operated by a fellow employee Oligario, struck a curb. The plaintiffs appealed a judgment denying their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross motion, dismissing the complaint. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that Constantine's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, making his sole remedy the Workers' Compensation Law. Consequently, both the employer and co-worker were immune from suit, and no liability could be imputed to the van owner, Gelco Corporation. The derivative claim by Constantine's wife was also dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployer ImmunityCo-employee ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDerivative ClaimVan AccidentNassau CountyNew York
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cintas Corp. v. Unite Here

Cintas Corporation and its affiliates sued UNITE HERE, Change To Win, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and several individuals, alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Lanham Act, and Ohio state law. Cintas accused the defendants of orchestrating a "Corporate Campaign" to pressure them into a card-check/neutrality agreement, involving disparaging websites and communications targeting Cintas's customers and investors. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Cintas failed to establish predicate acts for the RICO claims (attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act and Ohio law). Additionally, the Lanham Act claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting were dismissed due to lack of likelihood of confusion, commercial use for profit, or bad faith intent to profit. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Ohio state-law claims, leading to the dismissal of the entire action.

RICOLanham ActTrademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionTrademark DilutionCybersquattingHobbs ActLabor UnionsCorporate CampaignFreedom of Speech
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.

This case involves the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation (Broadway) disputing the termination date of Broadway's non-union employee pension plan. PBGC initiated the lawsuit to become the statutory trustee and sought to establish March 26, 1981, as the termination date. Broadway argued for an earlier, retroactive date. The court, guided by ERISA and the interests of the plan participants, rejected both parties' proposed dates. The judge formulated a test for involuntary terminations and ultimately established December 5, 1980, as the official termination date, citing the date PBGC first formalized its intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActInvoluntary TerminationTermination Date DisputeBankruptcyPlan Participants' InterestsStatutory TrusteeFiduciary DutyPension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,582 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