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

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Flight Engineers’ International Association (FEIA) filed an action under the Railway Labor Act against Pan American World Airways (Pan Am) seeking a preliminary injunction. The unions aimed to compel Pan Am to revert to non-concessionary "white pages" agreements after January 1, 1985, arguing that prior "pink pages" concessions were temporary and had expired. Pan Am contended the "pink pages" constituted the status quo for ongoing negotiations. Presiding Judge McLaughlin, consolidating the trial on merits with the injunction hearing, ruled that the parties had explicitly agreed in their contracts that the "white pages" would define the status quo after the expiration of the temporary concessions. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, ordering Pan Am to construct future flight assignment bid lines in accordance with the "white pages," while denying the retrospective reconstruction of already issued January bid lines.

Railway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionStatus QuoCollective BargainingLabor AgreementContract InterpretationUnion RightsEmployer ObligationsBid LinesConcessionary Agreements
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Candor Central School District v. American Arbitration Ass'n

The Candor Central School District (the district) applied to the court for an order restraining the American Arbitration Association (AAA) from proceeding with arbitration. This application was made while a CPLR 7503 proceeding to stay arbitration, involving the district and the Candor Faculty Association, was pending in another court. The district argued against the need for a temporary restraining order in the CPLR 7503 proceeding, citing judicial time and client costs. The AAA countered that its impartiality would be compromised if it were named an adverse party and stressed the importance of proceeding with arbitration unless explicitly stayed by stipulation or court order. The court ultimately denied the district's application, concluding that restraining the AAA was inappropriate and advising the district to seek relief within the pending CPLR 7503 proceeding.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCPLR 7503American Arbitration Association (AAA)Injunctive ReliefJudicial InterventionArbitration RulesCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial RestraintProcedural Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n

TransAtlantic Lines LLC sought to overturn an adverse insurance coverage decision by the Board of Directors of American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, following a shipping accident. TransAtlantic argued for a de novo review, asserting the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process was fundamentally unfair due to the Board's inherent financial bias and violated public policy. The district court, however, applied the contractually agreed-upon "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. The court rejected TransAtlantic's claims of bias and public policy violations, finding that TransAtlantic had voluntarily consented to the ADR framework. Consequently, the court upheld the Board's decision to deny coverage for attorney's fees, U.S. Government cargo losses, and perishable cargo expenses, concluding that these denials were not arbitrary or capricious.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardContract LawMarine InsuranceJudicial Review of ArbitrationWaiver of RightsPublic Policy ExceptionAttorney Ethics
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garrick-Aug Associates Store Leasing, Inc. v. Hirschfeld

Plaintiffs Garrick-Aug Associates Store Leasing, Inc. and Charles Aug filed an action against defendants Michael Hirschfeld, The Hirschfeld Companies, Inc., European American Bank (EAB), Paul Arendt, and Mark Anderson, alleging a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The plaintiffs claimed that Hirschfeld, with the complicity of EAB employees Arendt and Anderson, misappropriated corporate funds through unauthorized loans and the mishandling of a Treasury Bill, using EAB accounts. Defendants moved to dismiss the RICO claims for failure to state a claim and state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the mailings cited by plaintiffs were not

Racketeering ActivityRICO ActMail FraudScheme to DefraudMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(b)(1)Enterprise
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allied Pilots Ass'n v. AMR Corp. (In Re AMR Corp.)

The Allied Pilots Association (APA) sought a declaratory judgment that its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with American Airlines, Inc. (American) expired in 2008 and thus could not be rejected under Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. American argued the CBA became 'amendable' under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), keeping its terms in effect during negotiations. The Court, following Second Circuit precedent, found that the CBA did not expire but became amendable under the RLA, making it subject to Section 1113. Consequently, the Court denied APA's motion for summary judgment and granted American's motion to dismiss.

BankruptcyCollective Bargaining AgreementRailway Labor ActSection 1113Declaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentLabor DisputeStatus Quo ProvisionsAmendable Contracts
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n (In Re Pan American Corp.)

This case involves an appeal by Pan American World Airways (Appellant) from a bankruptcy court decision that affirmed an arbitration award. The award, issued by the Pan Am and ALPA System Board of Adjustment, reinstated Captain Harold Gay, Jr. with back pay and full seniority after his discharge for allegedly allowing a flight attendant to manipulate flight controls. The Appellant sought to vacate the award, arguing the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by not deciding the underlying misconduct and by imposing procedural due process requirements not explicitly in the collective bargaining agreement, and that the award violated public policy regarding airline safety. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kimba M. Wood, affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, finding the Board acted within its jurisdiction by considering due process under the collective bargaining agreement and that the award did not violate public policy, especially given the NTSB's finding that the alleged misconduct did not occur.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementRailway Labor ActJudicial ReviewDue ProcessPublic PolicyAirline SafetyEmployee DischargeReinstatementBankruptcy Court Appeal
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03742 [185 AD3d 427]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2020

Kolakowski v. 10839 Assoc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, in a case involving Andrzej Kolakowski, 10839 Associates, and American Pipe & Tank Lining Co., Inc. The court upheld the denial of summary judgment for defendants on dismissing the complaint and their third-party contractual indemnification claim. It also affirmed the denial of plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, citing factual disputes regarding safety harness use and the recalcitrant worker defense. Additionally, the dismissal of the third-party contractual indemnification claim was affirmed, as the agreement was executed post-accident without retroactive intent. Issues of fact further precluded summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6), Labor Law § 200, and common-law negligence claims.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant WorkerProximate CauseAccidentSafety HarnessAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site
References
8
Case No. ADJ 4359672 (VNO 0478019)
Regular
Apr 08, 2016

JORGE OROZCO vs. MARRIOTT DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES/INTERSTATE HOTELS AND RESORTS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, CENTURY PLAZA HOTEL

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an insolvent insurer's obligations under a workers' compensation settlement. The applicant settled a cumulative trauma injury claim, and the settlement agreement apportioned liability for remaining lien claims among insurers, including American Protection Company. After American Protection Company became insolvent, CIGA stepped in, but sought dismissal, arguing its liability was not joint and several and no "other insurance" existed. The Board affirmed the dismissal of CIGA, holding that the original joint and several nature of the insurers' liability, as established by case law and the settlement, means Zurich North America's remaining liability constitutes "other insurance" relieving CIGA.

CIGAAmerican Protection Insurance CompanyMarriott Downtown Los AngelesInterstate Hotels and ResortsZurich North AmericaCentury Plaza HotelBroadspireSedgwick Claims Management ServicesCompromise and Release Agreementcumulative trauma
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1983

American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. v. North River Insurance

Vincent Yeager, an employee of American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. (American), was injured during employment, leading to a lawsuit against a machine manufacturer, who then brought a third-party action against American for indemnification. American was covered by both a workers’ compensation policy from the State Insurance Fund and a general liability policy from North River Insurance Co. North River disclaimed liability, citing exclusions for workers’ compensation obligations and bodily injury to employees. American then initiated a fourth-party action against North River for contribution. The Supreme Court initially denied American's summary judgment motion and granted North River's cross-motion to dismiss, with leave to replead for indemnification. This court reversed, holding that North River's exclusions do not insulate it from American’s claims because the employer's liability to a third-party tort-feasor for an employee's injury arises from equitable apportionment, not directly from workers' compensation law, thus granting American's motion for summary judgment and denying North River's cross-motion.

Insurance coverage disputeGeneral liability policyWorkers' compensation exclusionContribution between tort-feasorsIndemnificationSummary judgmentFourth-party actionDole-Dow doctrineEquitable apportionmentEmployer liability
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,956 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