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

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1994

Austin v. Local 1-2

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 17, 1994. The defendants sought to disqualify the plaintiff's attorney, Stuart Bochner, in an action for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court denied the disqualification motion, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. The court held that Bochner's representation of a separate entity related to the defendant union, on unrelated matters, did not create an adverse effect on his professional judgment. Furthermore, his previous role as general counsel for the union ten years prior was not substantially related to his current representation of the plaintiff, thus not warranting disqualification.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestProfessional EthicsBreach of ContractWrongful DischargePrior RepresentationLegal EthicsAppellate ReviewSupreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1971

Commarato v. McLeod

The President of Local 400 sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election, pending the final disposition of unfair labor practice charges. The Regional Director opposed this, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. The court reviewed the factual background, including a postponed election, subsequent unfair labor practice charges filed by unions against Art Steel Company, Inc., and the Board's decision to proceed with the election despite its own 'blocking charge rule'. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's discretionary order to proceed with the election, as it did not fall under the narrow exception of the Board acting in direct contravention of a specific statutory mandate. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActRepresentation ElectionPreliminary InjunctionJudicial ReviewNLRB JurisdictionUnfair Labor PracticesBlocking Charge RuleStatutory InterpretationFederal Courts
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 1974

Kaminsky v. Connolly

This appellate decision addresses an action by a plaintiff seeking pension benefits from the Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund. The initial trial court granted the plaintiff a pension against the union despite finding him a stranger to the fund and no specific relief sought. However, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff, an owner-driver, was never covered by the collective bargaining agreement and made no contributions to the pension fund. Furthermore, even if considered an employee, he lacked the requisite 15 years of service for eligibility. The court also clarified that federal law governs the union's duty of fair representation, requiring proof of bad faith, which the plaintiff failed to provide. Consequently, the judgment awarding damages was modified, and the complaint against the appellant union was dismissed.

Pension FundLabor UnionTaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementOwner-DriverEmployee EligibilityFair Representation DutyFederal LawAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albertson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

The court ruled that rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice do not provide for granting summary judgment in an equity action concerning the determination of title for adverse claimants to a fund held by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Consequently, the previous judgment and order were unanimously reversed, with costs awarded, and the motion was denied.

Summary JudgmentEquity ActionCivil ProcedureAdverse ClaimsFund DisputeReversed Judgment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Portlette v. Toussaint

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action regarding breach of a duty of fair representation, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support the claim. The decision cited several precedents to support the dismissal. Additionally, the plaintiff's other arguments were found to be without merit.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintAppellate AffirmationCivil ProcedureCPLR 3211Rockland CountySupreme CourtSufficiency of Pleadings
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05464 [220 AD3d 614]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2023

Children's Magical Garden, Inc. v. Marom

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted an adverse inference charge against the defendant for spoliation of evidence. The Supreme Court found the defendant grossly negligent in spoliation. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, determined that the imposed adverse inference charge was inappropriate because it required rather than permitted the jury to draw an adverse inference. Furthermore, due to conflicting testimony, the issues of spoliation and the warrant for an adverse inference should have been presented to the jury first. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order by deleting the specific adverse inference charge, remanding the matter for a new charge, and otherwise affirming the order.

Spoliation of evidenceAdverse inference chargeGross negligenceAppellate reviewEvidentiary sanctionsCivil procedureDiscoveryJury instructionsRemandNew York law
References
3
Case No. ADJ9478710
Regular
Apr 28, 2015

Hanna Kefetew vs. Neiman Marcus, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves applicant Hannah Kefetew's petition for removal of a WCJ's order setting a trial for her workers' compensation claim. The petition was denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Appeals Board also noted issues with proper attorney representation and service of documents. Reconsideration is deemed an adequate remedy if a final decision is adverse to the applicant.

Petition for RemovalWCJThreshold IssueInjury arising out of and occurring in the course of employmentCumulative PeriodAbdomenPsycheSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmIncomplete Discovery
References
1
Case No. ADJ7047735
Regular
Jun 17, 2013

ANGELO TOTA vs. VERIZON SERVICES, SEDGWICK

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration regarding an Order allowing costs for applicant's former attorneys. The petition was filed by defendants Verizon Services and Sedgwick CMS, objecting to interpreter fees, but it failed to address the actual costs ordered. Crucially, the petition was not served on all adverse parties, a procedural defect that alone warrants dismissal. The Board dismissed the petition, also noting deficiencies in its substance and attorney representation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing CostsLabor Code Section 5811Interpreter FeesDepositionService of ProcessAdverse PartiesDismissalVerification
References
0
Case No. ADJ3746488
Regular
Oct 07, 2010

JAVIER CHAVEZ vs. CRESCENT TRUCK LINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision which found a lien claimant to be an assignee, thus not a covered claim for CIGA. The Board found the WCJ erred in drawing an adverse inference of assignment without sufficient evidence. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on whether the lien was legally assigned. The Board clarified that the nature of the assignment (absolute vs. for representation) is crucial to determining CIGA's liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien Recovery ServicesNorwalk OrthopedicCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAadverse inferenceassigneelegal assignmentcovered claimexhibition exclusion
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,046 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