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

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.

The plaintiff, Genesco, Inc., a shoe manufacturer, sued Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, alleging four causes of action. The first cause of action claimed a breach of collective bargaining agreements and a no-strike clause. The second alleged violations of Section 303 of the L.M.R.A. by inducing other employers to cease doing business with Genesco. The third and fourth causes of action were common law torts alleging inducement of other labor organizations to breach contracts and a scheme to destroy Genesco's business. The court dismissed the first cause of action, finding no valid contract existed at the time of the strike. The second cause of action survived dismissal, while the third and fourth causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend, as they were deemed arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionPreemptionPendent JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. ADJ5487199 ADJ5087748 ADJ8108959 ADJ8253201
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

AVIGAIL URUETA vs. NORTHROP CORPORATION, AIG, FREMONT INDEMNITY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a November 28, 2016 Joint Findings and Award. Subsequently, the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) issued an Amended Joint Findings and Award on January 4, 2017, within the permissible 15-day window for amendments. Since no further petitions for reconsideration were filed regarding the amended decision, the WCAB vacated its initial grant of reconsideration. Consequently, the petitions for reconsideration of the original award are dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNorthrop CorporationAIGFremont IndemnitySedgwick CMSPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardAmended Joint Findings and AwardWCJWCAB Rule 10859
References
0
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ3776569 (LAO 0771449), ADJ3927273 (LAO 0771450)
Regular
May 14, 2025

MARIA MARTINEZ vs. BOSS FASHIONS INC.; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center (DTC) sought reconsideration of an Amended Joint Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the legal and factual issues. Subsequently, the parties resolved DTC's lien through a stipulation during a commissioners' settlement conference. The Board approved this stipulation and, as a result, rescinded the earlier Amended Joint Findings and Order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationLiquidationReconsiderationLien ClaimantStipulationApprovedRescindedAmended Joint Findings and OrderCommissioner's Settlement Conference
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2006

Rivera v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Russell Rivera, Jr. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas, who issued a Report and Recommendation to remand the action for further administrative proceedings, citing deficiencies in the plaintiff's hearing. After defendant objected to a time limit, an Amended Report and Recommendation was issued, omitting the disputed time limitation. District Judge Richard J. Holwell, finding no clear error, adopted the Amended Report in its entirety, granting the Commissioner’s motion. The court's decision was based on the Administrative Law Judge's failure to fully develop the administrative record and adequately consider the treating physician’s opinion, Dr. Asbury, whose findings differed from a nonexamining medical consultant.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) ReviewRemand OrderTreating Physician RuleMedical AssessmentHIV/AIDS ImpairmentHepatitis C DiagnosisProcedural Error
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amalgamated Service & Allied Industries Joint Board v. Supreme Hand Laundry, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a joint board representing workers, sued several laundry businesses for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, alleging that the defendants constituted a single employer and failed to provide proper notice of termination. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment against the 'Karten defendants' (Supreme Hand Laundry, Inc. and related entities) due to their failure to secure legal representation after their original counsel was disqualified. The court also denied defendant 2350 Fifth Avenue Corp.'s belated motion to amend its answer to assert a 'good faith' defense under the WARN Act, citing undue delay, potential prejudice to plaintiffs, and futility. Final judgment was entered against the Karten defendants for over $600,000, including attorneys' fees, and other defendants were dismissed by agreement or order.

WARN ActDefault JudgmentRule 54(b) CertificationGood Faith DefenseCorporate VeilAttorney DisqualificationStatutory DamagesBack PayMass LayoffPlant Closing
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1988

Claim of Baker v. Three Village Central School District

The employer appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found that the claimant had a causally related disability after a head injury sustained on September 15, 1982. The employer contested the finding of disability subsequent to November 1, 1982, arguing that a psychologist's testimony should not have been considered on the issue of causal relationship because the psychologist was not a physician. The Board, however, based its decision on a comprehensive review of the record, including reports and testimony from a psychiatrist, as well as the testimony of the claimant and the psychologist. The court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding ample expert medical evidence supporting the disability and concluding that the psychologist's testimony was relevant to the length of the disability. The court found no irrationality in the Board's conclusion and no basis to disturb the decision.

Workers' CompensationHead InjuryDisabilityCausal RelationshipPsychiatric EvaluationNeuropsychologyExpert TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Farcasin v. PDG, Inc.

Claimant, a director of research and publications, developed neck and shoulder pain radiating to his arms and hands after working for the employer for a month, attributing it to a lack of an ergonomically designed workstation and an outdated computer. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found he suffered an occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, but later amended it, ruling that claimant suffered an accidental injury. The employer appealed both decisions. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in amending the prior decision and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment-related accidental injury, which can be established by medical evidence of repetitive acts causing debilitating injury, even if symptoms accrued gradually.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Strain InjuryErgonomicsAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionJurisdictionMedical EvidenceGradual Injury
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03553 [207 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

Katherine C. Sullivan and Kat Sullivan LLC challenged the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) regarding the application of the Lobbying Act to their advocacy efforts for the Child Victims Act. Plaintiffs asserted the Act was unconstitutional on its face due to First Amendment violations, vagueness, and overbreadth, and also challenged its constitutionality as applied to their activities, alongside the validity of JCOPE's regulations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges to the Lobbying Act, declaring it constitutional, and also upheld the dismissal of the challenge to JCOPE's regulations. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the 'as-applied' challenges, concluding that a justiciable and ripe controversy existed. This allows for judicial review of JCOPE's interpretation and enforcement against plaintiffs' past and threatened future advocacy.

Lobbying ActFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineJusticiabilityRipenessDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewChild Victims Act
References
77
Showing 1-10 of 17,849 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