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

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17 v. Union Concrete & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Case No. Docket No. 10
Regular Panel Decision

Zhong v. August August Corp.

Plaintiff Jian Zhong filed a class action against defendant August August Corp. alleging denial of overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Minimum Wage Act (NYMWA). Defendant August filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the FLSA overtime claims and related state law claims, but denied it in part, allowing the FLSA minimum wage claims and related state law claims to proceed. Plaintiff Zhong was granted leave to amend the complaint to address the deficiencies in the dismissed claims.

FLSANYMWAWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage ViolationMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) MotionLeave to AmendClass Action PotentialSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson-Stevens, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17

Patterson-Stevens (plaintiff) sought to vacate a July 24, 1995 judgment and amend its complaint against Local 17 (defendant). The original complaint sought an injunction to prevent arbitration of a grievance initiated by Local 17, which Patterson argued was untimely under a six-month statute of limitations. The court initially dismissed the case, lacking jurisdiction to issue an injunction. Patterson-Stevens then moved to vacate, arguing the complaint implicitly stated a claim for declaratory judgment. The court denied the motion, finding no clear error of law or manifest injustice in its prior decision. Furthermore, the proposed amendment for declaratory relief was deemed futile, as there was no legal precedent supporting a statute of limitations for grievance submission, unlike federal court actions.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrationStatute of LimitationsFederal JurisdictionInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to Vacate JudgmentMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. ADJ4134943 (LAO 0800933) ADJ2639030 (LAO 0847979)
Regular
Nov 09, 2015

Arturo Guillen vs. PRO AMERICA PREMIUM TOOLS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, PACIFIC NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) successfully petitioned for reconsideration, leading the Board to find the applicant sustained two separate cumulative trauma injuries. The Board clarified the dates of these injuries: August 17, 1999, through August 17, 2000, and August 29, 2000, through August 29, 2001. Consequently, the case is remanded to the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to address apportionment, joint and several liability between CIGA and Highlands Insurance Company, and other outstanding issues.

CIGAPacific National Insurance Companyliquidationcumulative traumatwo cumulative injuriesjoint and several liabilityHighlands Insurance CompanyapportionmentLabor Code 4663Labor Code 4664
References
11
Case No. 97 Civ. 7455(SS)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1998

Schepis v. LOCAL UNION NO. 17, UNITED BROTH.

The plaintiff, Benedetto Schepis, a former union official, sought reimbursement of legal defense costs from Local Union No. 17 and District Council of New York City after his criminal conviction was overturned. The Union removed the case from New York State Supreme Court to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the LMRDA and LMRA. Schepis moved to remand the action, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion to remand, finding no federal cause of action for reimbursement under the LMRDA or LMRA, and explicitly noting that LMRDA preserves state law claims. The court also awarded Schepis costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred due to the improper removal.

Removal jurisdictionFederal questionLabor-Management Disclosure and Reporting ActLabor Management Relations ActUnion fiduciary dutiesState law claimsWell-pleaded complaint ruleComplete preemptionAttorney's feesRemand
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17 v. Swank Associated Co.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 17, initiated an action to compel arbitration against Swank Associated Company, Inc., following a labor grievance. Swank removed the case to federal court and filed a third-party action against Local 210, arguing the matter constituted a jurisdictional dispute not subject to arbitration. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Schroeder, examined the collective bargaining agreement to determine the arbitrability of the dispute. It concluded that while an arbitrator could determine if the issue was a jurisdictional dispute, they could not resolve it on the merits if it was found to be jurisdictional. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the grievance was directed to arbitration solely to ascertain whether it constituted a jurisdictional dispute under the agreement.

Labor LawArbitration AgreementJurisdictional DisputesCollective BargainingLabor Management Relations ActFederal CourtPleadings MotionContract InterpretationArbitrabilityUnion Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 1995

International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17 v. Lexo

Local 17 of the International Union of Operating Engineers ('Local 17') filed an action against John Lexo, a member of IUOE Local 463, seeking to collect a $5,000 fine. The fine was imposed by Local 17 after Lexo was found guilty of working in its jurisdiction without clearance, a violation of the IUOE constitution and Local 17 by-laws. Local 17 moved for summary judgment under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The court denied the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3), concluding that Section 301(a) does not grant federal jurisdiction for a local union to sue an individual member of another local to enforce a monetary fine.

Labor Management Relations ActSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentUnion ConstitutionUnion FinesIntra-union DisputesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)Collective Bargaining AgreementLabor Union LitigationInter-union Relations
References
13
Case No. ADJ10239095
Regular
Apr 03, 2025

FRED DAVIS vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

Defendant, Southern California Edison, petitioned for reconsideration of the August 17, 2022 Findings of Fact, Award and Orders, which found applicant Fred Davis sustained a work-related low back, neck, and hypertension injury resulting in 76% permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration. Subsequently, the parties filed a Compromise and Release. Therefore, the Appeals Board rescinded the August 17, 2022 decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings to consider the Compromise and Release, without ruling on the merits of the reconsideration petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactAward and OrdersPermanent Partial DisabilityCompromise and ReleaseOpen Medical TreatmentRescinded DecisionReturned to Trial LevelAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1982

Weiss v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

The State Human Rights Appeal Board's order, dated July 27, 1982, concerning Anna S. Weiss and the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, has been modified. The court has remanded for further consideration finding number 23, which stated that complainant Anna S. Weiss voluntarily retired from the WCB effective August 17, 1978. Consequently, the associated directives for WCB to pay Anna S. Weiss back pay, based on the salary difference between a Senior Research Analyst and an Assistant Director of Research and Statistics for the period June 22, 1978, to August 17, 1978, and $1,000 for humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, are also subject to further review. The court noted that providing both wage difference and embarrassment damages might be duplicative or that $1,000 is sufficient for punitive purposes. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DisputeRetirement BenefitsWage DifferentialEmotional Distress DamagesAdministrative Law AppealJudicial RemandAppellate Panel DecisionDissenting Judicial OpinionConcurring Judicial Opinion
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,114 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