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

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. ADJ9743291
Regular
Nov 06, 2018

CDWARD DE LA ROSA vs. ALL AREA PLUMBING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed applicant Edward De La Rosa's removal petition, finding the WCAB lacks jurisdiction over his claim. De La Rosa failed to timely dispute his claim denial through the mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, as required by his union's agreement. Specifically, he did not request a Qualified Medical Evaluator within the prescribed 30-day period after receiving notice of denial. This failure to follow the ADR procedures, including timely dispute resolution steps, bars the WCAB from adjudicating the merits of his injury claim.

RemovalLabor Code section 5301Petition for RemovalDue ProcessJurisdictionADR ProgramCertified RecordApplication for AdjudicationPetition to DismissQualified Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. ADJ10348591 ADJ10349019
Regular
Jan 07, 2019

MIGUEL VELAZQUEZ, SERVANDO VELAZQUEZ vs. ARTEMIO ARCE, SOLOMON MARTINEZ

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior finding that liens for interpreting services were not barred by AD rule 9792.5.5. This rule, requiring a second review request for fee schedule disputes, did not apply because the interpreter services were not subject to an applicable fee schedule at the time of service. Therefore, the lien claimant's failure to request a second review did not preclude the WCAB from adjudicating the lien dispute. The Board reasoned that AD rule 9792.5.5 and associated statutes only mandate the second review process for disputes concerning amounts under an "applicable fee schedule."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAD Rule 9792.5.5Official Medical Fee ScheduleIndependent Bill ReviewExplanation of ReviewLabor Code section 4603.2Senate Bill 863Threshold IssueFee Schedule DisputeInterpreter Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Wilinston BB

This appeal stems from a Family Court order in Albany County, adjudicating the respondent a juvenile delinquent. The respondent contested the Family Court's decision not to suppress his written confession, arguing it was involuntarily made. The appellate court, however, affirmed the Family Court's ruling, finding no evidence of coercion during police questioning and noting the appropriate handling of the respondent's mother's presence. While acknowledging certain evidentiary errors by the Family Court, the appellate panel deemed them harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the respondent's guilt. Consequently, the original order of juvenile delinquency adjudication was affirmed.

juvenile delinquencyconfessionsuppression of evidenceinvoluntary confessionFamily Court Actevidentiary rulingsharmless errorrape first degreesodomy first degreepolice questioning
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Micamold Radio Corp. v. Beedie

This case addresses a plaintiff's request for an injunction in a labor dispute. The court examined the retroactive application and constitutionality of Chapter 477 of the Laws of 1935, which amended the Civil Practice Act by adding section 876-a, outlining specific conditions for issuing injunctions in such disputes. The new law imposes rigorous requirements, including findings of unlawful acts, irreparable injury, and a lack of adequate public protection. After reviewing various legal precedents on statutory retroactivity, the court determined that the 1935 statute affects substantive rights, not merely procedural forms. Consequently, the court concluded that the law cannot be applied retroactively to the plaintiff's pre-existing cause of action, thus ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

injunctionlabor disputestatutory interpretationretroactivityCivil Practice ActSection 876-aequitable reliefsubstantive lawprocedural lawworker rights
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeanne TT.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County that adjudicated the respondent a person in need of supervision (PINS) and placed her in the custody of the petitioner for 18 months. The PINS adjudication stemmed from the respondent absconding from treatment facilities on three occasions after being removed from her mother's home due to a prior neglect proceeding. The respondent argued that the Family Court abused its discretion by not substituting a neglect petition for the PINS petition and that testimony from social workers violated client-social worker privilege. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, noting the respondent's behavior was not attributable to parental abuse and occurred while she was in residential treatment. It also ruled that the client-social worker privilege did not apply to the evidence presented, as the communications were not made to a certified social worker or intended to be confidential. Finally, the court affirmed the dispositional order, finding placement necessary given the respondent's history of incorrigible behavior and her mother's surrender of parental rights.

Family Court ActPINS proceedingPerson in Need of SupervisionClient-social worker privilegeCPLR 4508AbscondingPlacement orderAdjournment in contemplation of dismissalNeglect proceedingParental rights surrender
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stalban v. Friedman

This Per Curiam decision addresses a labor dispute where the plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendant unions, despite the union members not being directly employed by the plaintiff. The court determined that a labor dispute, as defined by Civil Practice Act, § 876-a, subd. 10, was indeed involved. Due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead or prove facts mandated by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, injunctive relief could not be granted. The decision emphasizes that the ruling of the State Labor Relations Board regarding collective bargaining agency did not influence this outcome. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously reversed, and the complaint dismissed with costs.

Labor Dispute LawInjunctive Relief DeniedCivil Practice Act § 876-aPleading SufficiencyCollective Bargaining IssuesUnion MembershipAppellate ReversalComplaint DismissalCourt Costs AwardedPer Curiam Opinion
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,298 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