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

Melin v. Arcata Graphics

This Memorandum and Order addresses defendants' motions to dismiss a complaint filed by a former employee. The plaintiff alleges wrongful discharge by his employer, Areata Graphics, in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, and a breach of the duty of fair representation by his union, Graphic Arts International Union, Local 17-B, for failing to process his grievance. Defendants argued the claims were time-barred by the six-month limitations period of the National Labor Relations Act. The court, however, rejected this argument, relying on Second Circuit precedents that apply New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules' longer limitations periods (either three or six years) to such claims. Consequently, the court found the plaintiff's claims timely and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss.

Wrongful DischargeBreach of Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCivil Practice Law and RulesFederal JurisdictionSecond Circuit PrecedentEmployee Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Graphic Arts Mutual, an automobile liability insurer, and Bakers Mutual, a workers' compensation carrier, over which policy covers an employer's derivative liability in a third-party personal injury action. An employee of Chimes Cake Co. was injured by a co-employee's negligence, leading to a third-party claim against the employer under the Dole-Dow doctrine. Graphic disclaimed responsibility, citing policy exclusions for employee bodily injury and workers' compensation obligations. The court affirmed that Graphic's automobile policy covered the employer's vicarious liability to a third-party tort-feasor, as this obligation did not fall within the stated exclusions. The decision emphasizes a functional analysis of separate insurance lines, concluding that automobile liability should cover obligations arising from vehicle operation.

Insurance disputeAutomobile liabilityWorkers' compensationThird-party actionDeclaratory judgmentEmployer's liabilityVicarious liabilityDole-Dow doctrinePolicy exclusionsCo-employee negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Longo v. Graphic Packaging Corp.

The claimant, a maintenance mechanic, was employed from 1961 to 2001, last by Graphic Packaging Corporation, a subsidiary of Coors Brewing Company. In 2007, he was diagnosed with interstitial lung disease due to workplace asbestos exposure, establishing March 15, 2007, as the date of disablement for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that Zurich American Insurance Company, the carrier for Coors, was liable, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Zurich and Graphic Packaging appealed, contending they were denied the right to present proof and that there was a lack of substantial evidence regarding Coors' employer status and Zurich's liability. The court found that Zurich failed to present evidence despite notice and opportunities, and the claimant's uncontroverted testimony provided substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination.

Asbestos exposureInterstitial lung diseaseOccupational diseaseWorkers' compensation benefitsEmployer liabilityInsurance carrier liabilitySubstantial evidenceUncontroverted testimonyWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanchett v. Graphic Techniques, Inc.

Plaintiff L. Sue Hanchett was seriously injured in January 1991 while employed by James River Corporation. She and her husband filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against Richard Hicks, a design engineer assigned by Graphic Techniques, Inc., claiming he removed safety guards. Defendants moved to amend their answer to assert a Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity defense and for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, plaintiffs contested the amendment due to prejudice and argued Hicks was not a special employee. The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no undue prejudice and concluding that Hicks was indeed a special employee of James River, thereby making the Workers' Compensation Law the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy.

special employmentWorkers' Compensation Lawsummary judgmentpleading amendmentCPLR 3025 (b)negligencepersonal injuryexclusivity defenseappellate reviewSaratoga County
References
7
Case No. ADJ9549773
Regular
Nov 13, 2015

EDWARD BAUTISTA vs. ARLON GRAPHICS, TRAVELERS

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration or removal, finding the WCJ's order was not a final determination. The WCJ correctly ordered the applicant to first discuss his anxiety symptoms and need for psychological referral with his primary treating orthopedist. Applicant is not entitled to a second opinion from a psychologist until the primary treating physician has diagnosed the anxiety or determined a referral is unnecessary. Commissioner Sweeney dissented, believing the applicant had an absolute right to an MPN second opinion for his psychiatric condition without first obtaining a referral from his orthopedist.

ADJ9549773Arlon GraphicsTravelersPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code Section 4616.3Labor Code Section 4616.4Administrative Director Rules
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04330 [151 AD3d 1127]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

Matter of Turner v. Graphic Paper Inc.

Claimant, a truck driver, sustained multiple work-related injuries between 2009 and 2012. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) classified him with a permanent partial disability and found a 66.7% loss of wage-earning capacity. Claimant sought reimbursement for medical and transportation expenses and challenged decisions regarding disputed medical bills. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his applications for review, finding that he failed to specify issues or grounds for review and that some issues were untimely raised. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concurring that the claimant's applications for review were deficient and that certain appeals were abandoned due to lack of arguments in the brief.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityAdministrative ReviewAppellate ProcedureApplication for ReviewTimelinessMedical ExpensesTravel ExpensesCounsel Fees
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1982

Claim of Buechi v. Arcata Graphics

The claimant, an employee of Areata Graphics in Depew, New York, was struck by an automobile and sustained serious injuries while exiting the plant premises after his shift. The accident occurred on George Urban Boulevard, a public thoroughfare, immediately in front of the plant's west entrance. At this entrance, the employer had installed and maintained a traffic light synchronized with employee shift changes. The claim was initially disallowed by a referee but was unanimously reversed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, establishing compensability. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, applying the "special hazard" exception to the premises rule, finding that the employer-controlled traffic light at the exit created a work-related risk, bringing the accident within the range of dangers associated with employment.

Workers' CompensationPremises RuleSpecial Hazard ExceptionCourse of EmploymentAccident Off-PremisesPublic ThoroughfareEmployer-Controlled Traffic LightAppellate ReviewCompensability of InjuryNew York Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amin v. Quad/Graphics, Inc.

Plaintiff, a former employee of Quad/Graphics, Inc., alleged discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and ethnicity from August 1990 to July 1993, seeking compensatory and punitive damages under federal civil rights laws and the New York Human Rights Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment on various grounds, including individual liability, statute of limitations, and sufficiency of claims. The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing all Title VII claims against individual defendants and Section 1981/Human Rights Law claims against two supervisors, Kirk and Robarge, who were subsequently dismissed from the case. Additionally, compensatory/punitive damages and jury trial requests for acts prior to November 21, 1991, were denied. However, the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's constructive discharge and hostile work environment claims, citing remaining issues of material fact.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReligion DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationEthnicity DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentCivil Rights Act of 1991Title VII
References
36
Case No. ADJ8061720, ADJ8061713
Regular
Jan 07, 2015

ERVIN RIVERA vs. TAYLOR CORPORATION GRAPHICS, GALLAGHER BASSET

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Taylor Corporation Graphics' Petition for Removal. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm stemming from the WCJ vacating submission to further develop the medical record. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, noting the issue of further medical development is set for a status conference. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalVacated SubmissionFurther Medical Record DevelopmentWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCAB Rules of Practice and ProcedurePermissibly Self-InsuredGallagher Bassett
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Career Blazers Agency, Inc. v. Corporate Graphics, Inc.

The case revolves around a dispute between an employment agency, Career Blazers, and an employer, Corporate Graphics, regarding a placement fee. The employee, provided by Career Blazers, voluntarily left the position before 30 days, leading to disagreement on the fee terms. The court found no mutual agreement on the contract's specifics, thus resorting to quantum meruit principles under the General Business Law. Applying General Business Law § 186, subdivision 4, the court determined that when an employee voluntarily terminates, the agency is entitled to 50% of the wages received, capped at 60% of the first month's wages. A judgment was issued in favor of Career Blazers for $384.62 plus interest and costs.

Employment Agency FeeQuantum MeruitGeneral Business LawEmployment TerminationContract DisputeClerical EmployeeWage CompensationStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityFee Calculation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 39 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