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

Ley v. Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A

Rhonda P. Ley, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, filed a petition against the Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A (Union) seeking a preliminary injunction. Ley alleged that Article XXII of the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Xerox Corporation (Employer) constituted an unlawful 'union signatory' agreement under Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, Ley claimed that the Union's continued attempts to enforce Article XXII violated Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act. The Union argued that Article XXII was a lawful work preservation provision. The Court found reasonable cause to believe the Union was violating the Act and that a preliminary injunction was just and proper to prevent further statutory violations and maintain public interest. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining the Union from enforcing Article XXII.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations ActUnion Signatory AgreementWork PreservationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingArbitrationDistrict Court
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. State University

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed her CPLR article 78 petition. She sought to annul the determination of respondents, State University of New York, Upstate Medical University, to terminate her probationary employment. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court reiterated that probationary civil service employees can be dismissed for nearly any or no reason, without a right to challenge, absent a showing of bad faith or an improper reason. The burden of proving such bad faith rests with the employee, and mere assertion is insufficient to meet this burden. The court concluded the petitioner failed to sustain this burden and found the termination conformed to applicable regulations, specifically 4 NYCRR 4.5 [b] [5].

Probationary EmploymentCivil ServiceTerminationBad FaithCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentSUNYAdministrative LawEmployment Law
References
13
Case No. ADJ19747880
Regular
Oct 27, 2025

OLGA MAGANA vs. PARTNERS PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Olga Magana filed a Petition for Reconsideration challenging a Findings and Order from August 4, 2025, which determined her average weekly wage to be $445.03 using Labor Code section 4453(c)(4). She argued that section 4453(c)(1) should apply, yielding $640.00 weekly. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's decision that due to the temporary nature of Magana's employment and her inconsistent work history, section 4453(c)(4) more fairly represented her earning capacity, considering all surrounding circumstances rather than just her hours at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAverage Weekly WageLabor Code Section 4453GoytiaTemporary Agency EmploymentEarning CapacityWCJ Credibility DeterminationSan Francisco
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schuck v. Board of Education of South Country Central School District

A school custodial worker, discharged for poor performance and absenteeism without a formal hearing, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement and a termination hearing. Special Term granted this relief, believing the petitioner was entitled to a hearing under Education Law § 2509 (4). However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, clarifying that Section 2509 applies exclusively to city school districts, not central school districts like the appellant. Central school districts are governed by article 37 of the Education Law, which lacks provisions for employee termination hearings. The court also dismissed the petitioner's equal protection argument, affirming the rational basis for differing regulations between school district types.

CPLR Article 78Termination HearingSchool Custodial WorkerEducation LawCentral School DistrictCity School DistrictDue ProcessEqual ProtectionJudgment ReversedUnsatisfactory Job Performance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sommerich v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

In an Article 78 proceeding, several civil service employees challenged a New York City Civil Service Commission rule (Section 4.4.10) that restricted make-up examinations solely to candidates whose disabilities were incurred during municipal employment. Petitioners, who had non-work-related disabilities preventing them from taking scheduled exams, argued the distinction was arbitrary and capricious. The court, presided over by Edward J. Greenfield, J., found no rational basis for differentiating between work-related and non-work-related disabilities when determining eligibility for a make-up exam, especially since verifiability of the disability was not dependent on its origin. Consequently, the court declared the challenged rule arbitrary, unreasonable, and invalid. The matter was then remanded for individual determinations regarding the extent and genuineness of each petitioner's alleged disability.

Civil Service LawMake-up ExaminationsDisability DiscriminationAdministrative RulesJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousRational BasisPublic EmploymentEmployment BenefitsPersonnel Policy
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Movers Ass'n v. Liu

Petitioners challenged the Comptroller's 2010 prevailing wage schedule for movers, arguing it was irrational and inconsistent with survey results, particularly regarding the application of Labor Law sections 220 and 230. The court found that the Comptroller incorrectly applied the 30% rule from Article 8 (Labor Law section 220), which is meant for 'Public Work' employees, instead of the discretion-based standard under Article 9 (Labor Law section 230) for 'Building Service Employees' like movers. The court also deemed arbitrary and capricious the Comptroller's inconsistent use of 'industry C' employees – including them to meet the 30% threshold but excluding their lower wages from the calculation. Consequently, the court annulled the Comptroller's prevailing wage schedule and remanded the case for a proper determination of the actual prevailing wage under Labor Law section 230, while denying other specific requests from the petitioners.

Prevailing WageLabor LawCPLR Article 78Comptroller DeterminationBuilding Service EmployeesMovers IndustryCollective Bargaining Agreement30% RuleArbitrary and CapriciousAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ1930275 (LAO 0856552)
Regular
Aug 19, 2019

Juan Ledesma vs. Nelson Martinez, Amador Estrada, Sara Montenegro

This case concerns Applicant Juan Ledesma's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on December 4, 2004, while working as a drywall installer. The initial decision denied benefits, finding intoxication barred recovery under Labor Code section 3600(a)(4). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior order and finding that Applicant did sustain injury to multiple body parts. The Board determined the defendants failed to prove Applicant's intoxication was a substantial or proximate cause of his injury, therefore section 3600(a)(4) did not bar recovery, deferring other issues.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(4)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderintoxication defenseproximate causesubstantial factoraffirmative defensepre-ponderance of the evidencesubstantial evidenceAOE/COE
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douds Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, Local Union No. 28

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against an unnamed labor organization (the respondent) under Section 10(l) of the NLRA. This action stemmed from a charge by Ferro-Co Corporation, alleging the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices under Section 8(b)(4)(A) by inducing employees of Dierks Heating Co., Inc. to refuse to handle Ferro-Co products. The court examined whether the respondent's actions constituted an illegal secondary boycott, which the legislative history of Section 8(b)(4)(A) aimed to prevent. It found no evidence of a labor dispute between the respondent and Ferro-Co (the 'secondary' employer), concluding the dispute was primarily with Dierks (the 'primary' employer). Since the circumstances did not align with the traditional concept of a secondary boycott, the court determined that equitable relief was not warranted and consequently denied the petition for injunctive relief.

Labor InjunctionSecondary BoycottNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(A)Taft-Hartley ActUnfair Labor PracticeCollective Bargaining AgreementPrimary DisputeNeutral EmployerUnion ConductTemporary Restraining Order
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giordano v. Forest City Ratner Companies

Brian Giordano, a carpenter, was injured at a construction site when a sheet of plywood struck him. He sued F.C. Foley Square Associates, LLC, and FCR Construction Services, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on Industrial Code sections 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a) and 23-2.4. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims based on both sections. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal regarding 12 NYCRR 23-2.4, finding it inapplicable to poured concrete construction. However, the court reversed the dismissal concerning 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a), stating that the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because the Court of Appeals had previously reversed a similar precedent regarding the applicability of this section to incomplete forms.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodePlywood InjuryConcrete WorkFlooring RequirementsAppellate DecisionPrima Facie Entitlement
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,425 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