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 the Arbitration between Hicks & Royal Globe Insurance

This case concerns claimants injured in a 1974 automobile accident during employment, seeking no-fault medical benefits. An arbitrator initially denied these benefits, citing the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. However, the Court of Appeals' decision in Ryder Truck Lines v Maiorano (1978) established that employees are entitled to no-fault benefits determinable by arbitration. Reviewing the arbitrator's decision, the court found it was based on a mistake of law. Applying a broader standard for judicial review in compulsory arbitration, the court vacated the part of the arbitrator's award denying medical benefits and remanded the issue for a rehearing to determine the benefits under the no-fault law. The respondent's cross-motion to confirm the arbitrator's decision was consequently denied.

Workers' CompensationNo-Fault InsuranceArbitrationJudicial ReviewMistake of LawAutomobile AccidentMedical BenefitsCompulsory ArbitrationCourt of Appeals PrecedentStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Reif & Williams Sportswear, Inc.

This case addresses whether a corporation is bound by an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement ratified by its predecessor partnership. The petitioner, Local 169 of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, initiated arbitration against the respondent, Williams Sportswear Co., Inc., for defaulting on payments to employee funds. The corporation, formed by the same partners who ran the predecessor partnership, continued the same business in the same location and sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was not a party to the agreement. While the Special Term denied the stay, the Appellate Division reversed, absolving the corporation of the obligation. The higher court, however, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the corporation acts as an 'alter ego' of the original promoters and is thus bound by the collective bargaining agreement, emphasizing that a change in corporate form does not negate pre-existing contractual obligations when the underlying business remains unchanged. Therefore, arbitration was deemed enforceable.

Arbitration AgreementCollective Bargaining AgreementCorporate LiabilityAlter Ego DoctrineSuccessor EmployerStay of ArbitrationPartnership DissolutionCorporate FormationContractual ObligationsUnion Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Diaz v. Kleinknecht Electric

The claimant, injured while running electrical cables near the World Trade Center site beginning in September 2001, first sought medical treatment in April 2003 and continued working until March 2011. Following a workers' compensation claim, an arbitrator initially classified him with a permanent total disability and established the date of disablement as March 2011, entitling him to a weekly rate of $739.83. In January 2013, the arbitrator rescinded this decision, finding the date of disablement to be April 2003, reducing the weekly award to $400. The claimant appealed this decision. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, applying the CPLR 7511 standard for reviewing arbitration awards, which limits judicial intervention to cases of corruption, fraud, misconduct, bias, or awards violating public policy, being irrational, or exceeding arbitrator's power. The Court found no irrationality in the arbitrator's selection of the date of first medical treatment as the date of disablement.

Workers' Compensation LawArbitration Award ReviewDate of DisablementPermanent Total DisabilityWorld Trade Center InjuriesAlternative Dispute ResolutionCPLR 7511 StandardJudicial Review of ArbitrationWaiver of ObjectionsIrrationality Standard
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Acme Backing Corp. & District 65, Distributive, Processing & Office Workers of America

This Per Curiam decision addresses a demand for arbitration that arose after a petitioner closed its Brooklyn plant and moved manufacturing to two factories in Missouri and Connecticut, controlled by separate corporations. The dispute involved conflicting interpretations of various articles within the collective bargaining agreement, specifically concerning the bargaining unit, management's rights, prohibitions against strikes, lockouts, or subcontracting when employees were not working full-time, and the responsibilities of 'successors in interest.' The court affirmed the lower court's order denying the motion to stay arbitration, holding that controversies involving the interpretation or application of the agreement's provisions, or any breach thereof, are exclusively within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, not the courts.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPlant ClosingRelocation of ManufacturingManagement RightsUnion RightsSuccessors in InterestContract InterpretationStay of ArbitrationJurisdiction of Arbitrator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re of the Arbitration between Town of Evans & International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied its petition to stay arbitration, granted respondent's counterclaim to compel arbitration, and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees and sanctions. The petitioner had terminated an accountant, Elmar Kiefer, for alleged sexual abuse and misuse of resources. Respondent filed a grievance on Kiefer's behalf, leading to a demand for arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was against public policy as an arbitrator might reinstate Kiefer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the public policy argument was premature and that courts should not pre-emptively assume an arbitrator will exceed their powers or violate public policy. The court also denied attorney's fees and sanctions for both parties.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementSexual HarassmentMisconductAttorney's FeesSanctionsAppellate ReviewGrievanceEmployment Termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Micamold Radio Corp. & Local 430, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, C. I. O.

This case involves an appeal concerning a motion to stay arbitration and to vacate a notice of intention to arbitrate. The order denying the motion was affirmed. The decision was made by a panel of judges including Close, P.J., Carswell, Adel, Lewis, and Aldrich. The affirmation was accompanied by an award of $10 costs and disbursements. No detailed opinion was provided for this decision.

arbitrationappealmotion to stayvacate noticeorder affirmedcosts and disbursements
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Wagner & Russeks Fifth Avenue, Inc.

The court denied a motion to confirm an arbitration award due to improper acknowledgment under Civil Practice Act § 1460. The respondent's cross-motion to vacate the award was granted. While arguments regarding exhausted arbitrator powers and excessive damages were rejected, the court found the arbitrator guilty of "misbehavior" under Civil Practice Act § 1462(3) due to an unreasonable delay in rendering the decision. This delay, from March 3 to August 20, 1948, prejudiced the employer by awarding substantial back pay to a rightfully discharged employee for a period largely covered by the arbitrator's inaction. The matter was remitted to the arbitrator for a rehearing to reassess back pay, which should not extend beyond the date a prompt decision was due.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationAward VacaturCivil Practice ActArbitrator MisconductUndue DelayLabor AgreementBack PayDeed AcknowledgmentReal Property Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Brunswick Central School District & Brittonkill Teachers Ass'n

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the petitioner's application to stay arbitration. The petitioner and respondent, parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), were in dispute after the petitioner denied tenure to a probationary teacher and the respondent filed a grievance challenging evaluation procedures. The Supreme Court initially granted the stay, concluding that the grievance challenged the non-arbitrable tenure decision rather than the arbitrable evaluation procedures. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the question of whether the evaluation procedures were violated pertained to the merits of the grievance and not its arbitrability, emphasizing the limited role of courts in staying arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureTenure DisputeEvaluation ProceduresArbitrabilityStay of ArbitrationAppellate ReviewLabor RelationsEducation Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C&D TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. International Ass'n of Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

This case involves cross-motions to vacate and confirm a labor arbitration award. Plaintiff C & D Technologies sought to set aside an award where Arbitrator Sheila Cole found the company violated its collective bargaining agreement by changing the "six week average" pay calculation. Defendant Local sought to confirm the award. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, reviewed whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, Section 10(a)(4). The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers, properly interpreted the ambiguous contract language, and her decision was rational. Consequently, the court denied the motion to set aside, granted the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationManifest Disregard for LawVacaturConfirmation of AwardSix Week Average PayWage Calculation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mulligan v. Workers' Compensation Board

The claimant, a former workers' compensation law judge, appealed the denial of reduced earning benefits, which stemmed from his claim that stress from his job caused him to voluntarily withdraw from the labor market. He had previously received benefits for a 1995 angina attack. An arbitrator and subsequent arbitration panel concluded that he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, a determination the claimant contested, asserting his retirement was due to work-related stress. The court, led by Judge Carpinello, found substantial evidence supported the panel's decision, noting the claimant never complained of stress to supervisors, sought accommodations, or applied for disability retirement. The court affirmed the arbitration panel's decision, denying the claimant's appeal.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketReduced Earning BenefitsWorkers Compensation BenefitsArbitration Panel DecisionSubstantial EvidenceDisability RetirementJob-Related StressAppellate ReviewLabor Market WithdrawalClaim Denial
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 23,712 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