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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This District Court opinion addresses motions by the Washington Heights Mental Health Council to amend its complaint and by District 1199 to enforce an arbitration award. Previously, the court vacated an award reinstating Edward Lane with back pay, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. The court now finds an oral collective bargaining agreement existed, generally requiring enforcement of the arbitration award. However, new serious allegations against Lane, if proven, could justify discharge. A strong public policy against reinstating a mental health worker accused of sexually molesting patients warrants staying his reinstatement pending arbitration of these new claims. Despite this, the court orders the Council to comply with the back pay portion of the arbitration award, finding no public policy violation in that aspect.

Arbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementBack PayReinstatement StayedSexual Misconduct AllegationsPublic Policy ExceptionLabor DisputeAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRemand Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves a motion by Benjamin Herman, president of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, Local 333, to confirm an arbitration award against H. Fleisig, Inc., the employer. The arbitration stemmed from a collective labor agreement to determine hourly wage rates for employees. Objections to the award included the arbitrator's failure to acknowledge the award, alleged unfairness and personal investigation, and awards exceeding union demands. The court found the acknowledgment defect was cured, dismissed claims of unfairness due to lack of record, and addressed the arbitrator's personal investigation regarding one employee, Stanley Stuarz, by allowing an amendment to waive the increased wage for Stuarz. Ultimately, the motion to confirm the amended award was granted.

arbitrationwage disputecollective bargaining agreementarbitration awardconfirmation of awardarbitrator misconductCivil Practice Actwaiver of arbitrator oathpersonal investigation by arbitratoramendment of arbitration award
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2001

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involved an amended judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning personal injury damages awarded to two construction workers. The judgment apportioned liability 20% against the general contractor and 80% against the subcontractor/employer. The court reviewed post-trial motions from the subcontractor to dismiss a contractual indemnification claim by the general contractor and motions from both parties to set aside future lost earnings awards as excessive. The court unanimously affirmed the amended judgment, finding the indemnification clause enforceable as it allowed for partial, not full, indemnification. The apportionment of liability was also upheld, supported by evidence of negligence from both the general contractor and the subcontractor. Additionally, the court found the awards for future lost earnings, including evidence of reasonably certain wage increases and application of CPLR 5041 (e) adjustment, to be proper.

Construction injuryPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLiability apportionmentLost earnings awardGeneral contractor negligenceSubcontractor negligenceIndemnification clause enforceabilityStatutory interpretationAppellate review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves an appeal by Seagull Energy to vacate an arbitral award. Seagull Energy had amended its management stability plan, which provided severance benefits, to exclude employees who retained their jobs after their divisions were sold during a merger with Ocean Energy. An arbitrator awarded $1.5 million to these excluded employees, prompting Seagull Energy to seek vacation of the award. The court found that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by applying an incorrect standard of review to the compensation committee's decision, misinterpreting the plan's text regarding amendments and fiduciary duties. Consequently, the court vacated the arbitral award and remanded the claims for a new arbitration.

Severance PlanArbitral AwardPlan AmendmentFiduciary DutyERISAScope of Arbitrator's PowerAbuse of DiscretionCompensation CommitteeCorporate MergerEmployer-Employee Benefits
References
10
Case No. 2020-04-0228
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2021

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case concerns Kenneth Ray, Jr.'s motion to alter or amend a final judgment regarding the amortization of his workers' compensation award and its offset against Social Security disability benefits, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207. The employer, Rollins, Inc., and the Subsequent Injury Fund had no objections to the proposed amendment. The Court granted the motion, amending the prior order to include details on the calculation of Mr. Ray's lump-sum award of $440,368.02 and its amortized monthly benefit of $863.46. This calculation was based on Mr. Ray's life expectancy of 42.5 years at the time of maximum medical improvement. The amended order clarifies the maximum monthly set-off for Social Security or other disability benefits under the specified Tennessee statute.

Workers' CompensationCompensation HearingBenefitsSocial Security OffsetAmortizationLump-Sum AwardFinal JudgmentMotion to AlterLife ExpectancyMortality Tables
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 1999

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The case involves an appeal by defendant 474431 Associates from an amended judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff for personal injuries. The Supreme Court had granted partial summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff established through circumstantial evidence that a pipe fell from an elevated height, striking him while he worked at ground level in the defendant's building. The appellate court affirmed the amended judgment, finding the plaintiff was properly granted summary judgment on liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the award of damages did not deviate materially from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDamagesCircumstantial EvidenceFalling ObjectConstruction SiteLiabilityAffirmed Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The case concerns an appeal by Texas A. & M. University from an Industrial Accident Board (I.A.B.) award in favor of Pete Ybarra. The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the original petition erroneously styled the appellant as “Texas A. & M. University at College Station by The University of Texas System.” An amended petition was filed naming “Texas A. & M. University at College Station” as plaintiff, but this was after the mandatory 20-day limitation period for appeals from I.A.B. awards. The appellate court held that the initial styling was a misnomer, not a mistaken identity of the plaintiff, and such misnomers are correctable by amendment even after the limitation period. The court concluded that "Texas A. & M. University" was the true plaintiff and the original timely filing conferred jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial court's dismissal was reversed, and the cause was remanded for trial.

Workers' Compensation AppealJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsMisnomerMistaken IdentityAmended PetitionIndustrial Accident BoardTrial Court ErrorRemandTexas Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning benefits for a work-related hand injury. Following the amputation of two fingers, the claimant sought an award based on a 70% schedule loss of use of the right hand, arguing for an additional 'loading' percentage as described in the Board's medical guidelines. The Board, however, determined that 'loading' was already incorporated into the percentage losses specified for multiple digit amputations in their guidelines. Consequently, the claimant's award was modified to reflect a 35% schedule loss of use. The appellate court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding a rational basis for its interpretation of the medical guidelines.

Schedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAmputationMedical GuidelinesLoading CalculationRight Hand InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWork-related AccidentJudicial Affirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

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
Feb 11, 2004

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an amended judgment that awarded plaintiffs damages after a jury trial. The case involved plaintiff Secundino, who was injured after falling from a scaffold that lacked guardrails. The court found that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on owners, contractors, and their agents for such safety breaches. Defendants' liability was established as a matter of law due to the clear evidence that the worker was provided an unguarded scaffold. The monetary awards granted by the jury were deemed reasonable compensation.

Scaffold accidentFall from heightAbsolute liabilityLabor LawGuardrailsProtective devicesJury trialDamagesAppellate affirmationProximate cause
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 13,963 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