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

Washington Heights—West Harlem—Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. v. District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, RWDSU

This District Court opinion addresses motions by the Washington Heights Mental Health Council to amend its complaint and by District 1199 to enforce an arbitration award. Previously, the court vacated an award reinstating Edward Lane with back pay, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. The court now finds an oral collective bargaining agreement existed, generally requiring enforcement of the arbitration award. However, new serious allegations against Lane, if proven, could justify discharge. A strong public policy against reinstating a mental health worker accused of sexually molesting patients warrants staying his reinstatement pending arbitration of these new claims. Despite this, the court orders the Council to comply with the back pay portion of the arbitration award, finding no public policy violation in that aspect.

Arbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementBack PayReinstatement StayedSexual Misconduct AllegationsPublic Policy ExceptionLabor DisputeAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRemand Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Herman

This case involves a motion by Benjamin Herman, president of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, Local 333, to confirm an arbitration award against H. Fleisig, Inc., the employer. The arbitration stemmed from a collective labor agreement to determine hourly wage rates for employees. Objections to the award included the arbitrator's failure to acknowledge the award, alleged unfairness and personal investigation, and awards exceeding union demands. The court found the acknowledgment defect was cured, dismissed claims of unfairness due to lack of record, and addressed the arbitrator's personal investigation regarding one employee, Stanley Stuarz, by allowing an amendment to waive the increased wage for Stuarz. Ultimately, the motion to confirm the amended award was granted.

arbitrationwage disputecollective bargaining agreementarbitration awardconfirmation of awardarbitrator misconductCivil Practice Actwaiver of arbitrator oathpersonal investigation by arbitratoramendment of arbitration award
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2001

Dutton v. Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd.

This case involved an amended judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning personal injury damages awarded to two construction workers. The judgment apportioned liability 20% against the general contractor and 80% against the subcontractor/employer. The court reviewed post-trial motions from the subcontractor to dismiss a contractual indemnification claim by the general contractor and motions from both parties to set aside future lost earnings awards as excessive. The court unanimously affirmed the amended judgment, finding the indemnification clause enforceable as it allowed for partial, not full, indemnification. The apportionment of liability was also upheld, supported by evidence of negligence from both the general contractor and the subcontractor. Additionally, the court found the awards for future lost earnings, including evidence of reasonably certain wage increases and application of CPLR 5041 (e) adjustment, to be proper.

Construction injuryPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLiability apportionmentLost earnings awardGeneral contractor negligenceSubcontractor negligenceIndemnification clause enforceabilityStatutory interpretationAppellate review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 1999

Rios v. 474431 Associates

The case involves an appeal by defendant 474431 Associates from an amended judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff for personal injuries. The Supreme Court had granted partial summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff established through circumstantial evidence that a pipe fell from an elevated height, striking him while he worked at ground level in the defendant's building. The appellate court affirmed the amended judgment, finding the plaintiff was properly granted summary judgment on liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the award of damages did not deviate materially from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDamagesCircumstantial EvidenceFalling ObjectConstruction SiteLiabilityAffirmed Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Canfield v. Thompson & Johnson Equipment

The claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning benefits for a work-related hand injury. Following the amputation of two fingers, the claimant sought an award based on a 70% schedule loss of use of the right hand, arguing for an additional 'loading' percentage as described in the Board's medical guidelines. The Board, however, determined that 'loading' was already incorporated into the percentage losses specified for multiple digit amputations in their guidelines. Consequently, the claimant's award was modified to reflect a 35% schedule loss of use. The appellate court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding a rational basis for its interpretation of the medical guidelines.

Schedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAmputationMedical GuidelinesLoading CalculationRight Hand InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWork-related AccidentJudicial Affirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Case-Hoyt Corp. v. Graphic Communications International Union Local 503

Case-Hoyt Corporation initiated this action under the Labor Management Relations Act to vacate an arbitration award concerning the layoff of seventeen employees. The arbitrator, Jeffrey M. Selchick, Esq., had ordered Case-Hoyt to reinstate the employees and provide back pay, but the company refused to comply. The court, in a previous decision filed March 18, 1997, confirmed the arbitration award in its entirety. Subsequently, the Union moved to amend the judgment to secure additional make-whole relief for employees due to Case-Hoyt's continued non-compliance with the award. Chief Judge Larimer denied the Union's motion, clarifying that the initial confirmation of the arbitration award already implicitly required full compliance, including all necessary make-whole relief to restore the employees to their rightful position as if the award had been followed. The parties were ordered to calculate the owed payments within thirty days.

Labor LawArbitration AwardVacaturConfirmationMotion to Amend JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementReinstatementBack PayEmployer Non-ComplianceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2004

Lezcano v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an amended judgment that awarded plaintiffs damages after a jury trial. The case involved plaintiff Secundino, who was injured after falling from a scaffold that lacked guardrails. The court found that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on owners, contractors, and their agents for such safety breaches. Defendants' liability was established as a matter of law due to the clear evidence that the worker was provided an unguarded scaffold. The monetary awards granted by the jury were deemed reasonable compensation.

Scaffold accidentFall from heightAbsolute liabilityLabor LawGuardrailsProtective devicesJury trialDamagesAppellate affirmationProximate cause
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2003

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Beyer Farms, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an amended judgment from December 23, 2003, which awarded plaintiff Commissioners over $370,000 against unnamed defendants. The award was for unpaid workers’ compensation and employers’ liability policies issued by the State Insurance Fund. The plaintiff successfully presented unrebutted business records, including insurance applications, policies, audit reports, and invoices, establishing a prima facie case. Defendants failed to demonstrate triable issues concerning the State Insurance Fund’s processing of Special Disability Fund claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) or the propriety of retrospective premiums. The court noted that defendants had not objected to premiums before the action and affirmed that New York law does not recognize a cause of action or defense for breach of an insurer's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing leading to increased retrospective premiums, characterizing the insurer's claims processing as a matter of business judgment.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceEmployers' Liability PolicyRetrospective PremiumBusiness Records AdmissibilityPrima Facie EntitlementBreach of Implied CovenantSpecial Disability FundJudgment AffirmationNew York Supreme CourtInsurance Fund Litigation
References
3
Case No. ADJ9014448
Regular
Mar 10, 2020

TIM WAITE vs. COUNTY OF VENTURA permissibly self-insured; administered by SEDGWICK RISK SERVICES (formerly YORK RISK SERVICES)

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the WCJ initially issued Findings and Awards. Following the applicant's request for reconsideration, the WCJ rescinded the award and set the matter for trial. The defendant then petitioned for reconsideration, but the WCJ issued an amended award *after* the period for such actions under WCAB Rule 10961 had expired, thus losing jurisdiction. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's amended award, holding that despite the jurisdictional issue with the amended award, it was the correct outcome.

WCABReconsiderationFindings and AwardsRescinding OrderJurisdictionWCJAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals BoardPetitionAmended F&A
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rotating Components, Inc. & District 4, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Petitioner moved to confirm an arbitration award, while Respondent cross-moved to vacate it, alleging imperfect execution and lack of a mutual, final, and definite award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement from December 1959, and a supplementary agreement from January 1960, which stipulated the assignment of the main agreement to a local union within 18 months, with arbitration if the assignment failed. The arbitrator issued an interim award on September 21, 1961, instructing the union to assign the agreement within 30 days. Upon the union's failure, the arbitrator, on October 29, 1961, assigned the agreement to a new local union to be formed for the employees of Rotating Components, Inc. The court found the arbitrator's award to be within his express powers and rejected the objection regarding the finality and definiteness of the award. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the award and denied the respondent's cross-motion to vacate it.

Arbitration AwardCollective BargainingUnion AssignmentContract DisputeMotion to ConfirmMotion to VacateLabor DisputeJudicial ReviewInterim AwardFinality of Award
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 10,142 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