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. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2000

Gallagher v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF ELEC. WORKERS

Plaintiff Michael Gallagher sued several entities, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and its President J.J. Barry, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation through IBEW Local Union No. 43's hiring hall. Gallagher claimed the collective bargaining agreement facilitated discrimination against older workers and that Local 43 was an agent of the International defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name the International defendants in his EEOC charge, thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies and that no identity of interest existed between the named and unnamed parties. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the International defendants due to Gallagher's failure to file an administrative complaint against them and the lack of an agency relationship or ratification of discriminatory acts. Furthermore, the court found the claims to be time-barred under both state and federal statutes of limitations.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionCollective Bargaining AgreementEEOCNYSDHRExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Judgment on PleadingsStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2000

Gallagher v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Michael Gallagher, a member of IBEW Local 43, sued the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), its President J.J. Barry, IBEW Local 43, and several electrical contractors, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation. He claimed violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Executive Law § 296. The International defendants (IBEW and J.J. Barry) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name them in his administrative charges with the EEOC and NYSDHR, and that the claims were time-barred. The court granted the motion, finding that the "identity of interest" exception did not apply, thereby barring the ADEA claim against the International defendants. Additionally, the court ruled that Gallagher's state law claims were also time-barred due to failure to file within the statutory limits against the International defendants.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionsCollective BargainingHiring HallEEOCNYSDHRStatute of LimitationsJudgment on the PleadingsIdentity of Interest
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madden v. International Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

Kenneth Madden, a union officer, was removed from his position by the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers and its officers, William Bernard and James Grogan, following a dispute over dues and an alleged hearing. Madden filed suit alleging violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), along with claims of libel and infliction of emotional distress. The individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under the LMRA. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding sufficient purposeful activity by the defendants in New York to establish jurisdiction. However, the motion to dismiss the LMRA claims for monetary damages against the individual officers was granted, consistent with Supreme Court precedent shielding individual union officers from monetary liability under LMRA Section 301. The motion to dismiss the complaint against Grogan for failure to allege a claim was denied.

LMRDALMRALabor UnionPersonal JurisdictionMotion to DismissIndividual LiabilityUnion OfficersFiduciary Shield DoctrineLabor DisputesNew York Law
References
28
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seventh Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v. Anchor Packing Co.

The provided text outlines a legal decision in the case of Constance F. Polito against several defendants, including Burns International Services Corporation, Daimler-Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation. The plaintiff's husband died from mesothelioma, allegedly due to asbestos exposure from the defendants' brake products. The court ruled on three motions in limine. The first two motions, seeking to exclude evidence related to workers' compensation claims, plant conditions, and documents from industrial health associations, were denied. The court found this evidence relevant to the defendants' knowledge of asbestos risks. The third motion, aimed at excluding deposition testimony and an affidavit from expert witness Ralph A. Froehlich, was granted, as the court deemed them inadmissible hearsay and rejected the argument of adoptive admissions.

AsbestosMesotheliomaMotions in LimineWorkers Compensation ClaimsPlant ConditionsHearsayExpert WitnessAdoptive AdmissionsState-of-the-Art EvidenceBrake Products
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04437 [186 AD3d 401]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2020

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

This case, part of the New York City Asbestos Litigation, involved claims from William E. Robaey and Marlena Robaey against Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, among others, for peritoneal mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure from gaskets. A jury awarded significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. On appeal, Federal-Mogul challenged the sufficiency of evidence for specific causation and the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the finding of specific causation, distinguishing the facts from prior rulings, particularly Juni. However, the court found the damages for past pain and suffering and past loss of consortium materially deviated from reasonable compensation and ordered a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff agreed to a stipulated reduction.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaToxic TortSpecific CausationExpert TestimonyDamages RemittiturPain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 323 v. International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, MacHine & Furniture Workers

Plaintiffs, Local 323 and its officers, initiated a lawsuit against the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE). They alleged that the IUE unlawfully denied Local 323's right to disaffiliate, claiming the IUE amended its constitution to obstruct disaffiliation and breached its own rules in denying their application. Plaintiffs sought judicial enforcement of disaffiliation, retention of assets, an injunction, and damages. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting various defenses, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court ultimately granted the defendant's motion, concluding that Local 323 had not exhausted its available administrative remedies within the union, a prerequisite for pursuing the claims in federal court, given the internal nature of the dispute.

Union DisaffiliationLabor LawLMRALMRDAExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInternal Union DisputeMotion to DismissBreach of ContractFederal Court JurisdictionUnion Constitution
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01875 [181 AD3d 1123]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Gimber v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Sandra Gimber (claimant) sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband (decedent), who died from mesothelioma allegedly due to asbestos exposure during his employment with Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) from 1967 to 1985. Kodak and its carrier attempted to apportion liability with the decedent's prior employer, International Paper Company, under Workers' Compensation Law § 44. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the apportionment, finding insufficient evidence that the decedent contracted mesothelioma during his employment with International Paper. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that while there was evidence of asbestos exposure at both employers, there was no objective medical evidence proving the disease process began during his employment with International Paper, which ended in 1967, especially since the diagnosis occurred in 2013. The court found the medical opinions linking the condition to prior employment to be speculative and insufficient to establish contraction during that period.

mesotheliomaasbestos exposureworkers' compensationapportionmentoccupational diseaselast employer liabilityprior employerdisease contractionsubstantial evidencemedical evidence
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 18,291 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