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

Lykes Bros. S. S. Co. v. Sheppeard

C. B. Stansfield, a longshoreman, sustained a left shoulder injury in 1938 while working for Lykes Bros. Steamship Company, leading to an initial workers' compensation award in 1939 for 15% permanent partial disability. The Deputy Commissioner later modified this award in February 1941, granting additional compensation, citing a "mistake in a determination of fact" after discovering that Stansfield's dislocated clavicle caused pressure on his trachea, a condition not initially known. Lykes Bros. Steamship Company sought judicial review to enjoin the enforcement of this modified award. Judge Kennerly of the District Court found that Stansfield had withheld information regarding his breathing issues from the Deputy Commissioner during the initial proceedings. Consequently, the court ruled that an employee cannot lawfully obtain a modification under Section 922 by withholding material facts, thus granting Lykes Bros. Steamship Company its decree enjoining the enforcement of the February 1, 1941, award.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPermanent Partial DisabilityDislocated ClavicleMedical EvidenceMistake of FactJudicial ReviewInjunctionGalveston, TexasWorkers' CompensationCompensation Award
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2011

Town of Babylon v. Stacy Carson

The Town of Babylon challenged an arbitration award that reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on its employee, Stacy Carson, which involved restoring 10 days of pay and shortening her probation. The Town's petition to vacate the award was initially denied by the Supreme Court, which held the arbitrator had broad authority despite limitations in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). On appeal, the higher court reversed this judgment, finding the arbitrator exceeded his power because the CBA only permitted a remedy if 'just cause' for discipline was not found, and the arbitrator had, in fact, affirmed 'just cause'. Consequently, the arbitration award's modifications were vacated, and the original penalties were reinstated.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementDisciplinary ActionEmployee MisconductJudicial ReviewArbitrator AuthorityVacate AwardConfirm AwardCPLR Article 75Just Cause
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1996

Suffolk County Water Authority v. Local 393, Utility Workers Union of America

The Suffolk County Water Authority appealed a Supreme Court judgment that confirmed an arbitration award. The arbitration award had modified a penalty imposed by the Authority on an employee from dismissal to a one-year suspension for disconnecting a water meter. The Authority argued this modification violated public policy. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the Authority failed to establish public policy considerations or its own rules warranting court intervention to vacate the award.

Arbitration Award VacaturEmployee DisciplinePublic Policy ChallengeAppellate Court DecisionCPLR 7511Judicial Review of ArbitrationSuffolk CountyEmployee MisconductWater AuthorityArbitrator's Power
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 1993

Manchester v. Whitbeck

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order in Fulton County, entered December 15, 1993, which granted the respondent's application for a modification of a prior custody and visitation order, awarding sole custody to the respondent. The appellate court reviewed the Family Court's findings, which alleged the petitioner's failure to provide for the child's minimal needs and demonstrated little parenting understanding. However, the appellate court found no support in the record for these findings, noting that some evidence was misinterpreted or explained by mediated agreements. It concluded that a change in custody was not warranted, as there was no indication it would substantially enhance the child’s welfare and the custodial parent was not shown to be unfit. Consequently, the order was modified by reversing the award of sole custody to the respondent and instead awarding sole custody to the petitioner, with liberal visitation to the respondent, and the matter was remitted to the Family Court to set an appropriate visitation schedule.

Child CustodyFamily LawCustody ModificationBest Interest of the ChildParental FitnessJoint CustodyAppellate ReviewVisitation RightsFamily Court ActJudicial Review
References
4
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1989

Lange v. Sartorius, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which affirmed an arbitrators’ award in favor of the petitioner and denied the respondents’ cross-motion to vacate it. The dispute arose from the petitioner's termination of employment, which was submitted to arbitration as per their employment agreements. The arbitrators found that the respondents had not complied with the agreements and rendered a monetary award to the petitioner, considering his sudden departure. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards are given deference and are not subject to judicial review for merely erroneous factual findings unless completely irrational. Since the arbitrators' award was not irrational, the Supreme Court's order was affirmed.

Arbitration AwardConfirmation of AwardVacatur of AwardEmployment DisputeJudicial Review of ArbitrationDeference to ArbitratorsIrrational FindingsNew York LawFederal LawAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2015

Matter of Maddox v. Baumann Sons Buses

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a permanent partial disability and a 40% loss of wage-earning capacity. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found an 80% loss of wage-earning capacity and modified prior temporary partial disability awards, but the Board reduced the capacity loss to 40% and rescinded the WCLJ's award modifications. The court upheld the Board's finding of a 40% loss of wage-earning capacity, citing substantial evidence from medical opinions and vocational factors. However, the court reversed the Board's rescission of the WCLJ's modification of temporary awards, as the Board's reasoning was based on an inaccurate reading of the record, mistakenly believing the WCLJ based modifications on wage-earning capacity rather than medical impairment. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings concerning the temporary disability awards.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTemporary Partial Disability AwardsMedical ImpairmentVocational FactorsOrthopedic Surgeon ReportCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schmidt v. Falls Dodge, Inc.

The claimant was awarded a 21.43% schedule loss of use for binaural hearing loss in 2007. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that this award was not subject to temporary disability benefits the claimant was already receiving from earlier workers' compensation cases. The employer and State Insurance Fund appealed, contending that a Court of Appeals decision overruled prior holdings regarding the overlap of schedule and nonschedule awards. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing between schedule awards for future earnings loss and nonschedule awards for temporary disability during a limited time frame, concluding they do not overlap.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseTemporary DisabilityBinaural Hearing LossAward OverlapAppellate DecisionInsurance FundEmployer LiabilityMedical BenefitsEarnings Loss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2002

In re the Arbitration between Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n & Building & Construction Trades Council

This case addresses a jurisdictional dispute between local labor unions regarding work on a construction project. The Supreme Court affirmed an arbitration award, finding both the petitioner and respondent locals were obligated to arbitrate under the New York Plan for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes. The court dismissed arguments regarding a separate national collective bargaining agreement involving the petitioner international union and employer, deeming it a "stranger" to the New York agreement. Consequently, the lower court's determination confirming the award in favor of the respondent local was unanimously affirmed. The petitioners' other contentions challenging the award were found unavailing.

ArbitrationLabor UnionJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementAward ConfirmationSupreme CourtContractual ObligationLabor LawWork AssignmentDispute Resolution
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C&D TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. International Ass'n of Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

This case involves cross-motions to vacate and confirm a labor arbitration award. Plaintiff C & D Technologies sought to set aside an award where Arbitrator Sheila Cole found the company violated its collective bargaining agreement by changing the "six week average" pay calculation. Defendant Local sought to confirm the award. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, reviewed whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, Section 10(a)(4). The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers, properly interpreted the ambiguous contract language, and her decision was rational. Consequently, the court denied the motion to set aside, granted the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationManifest Disregard for LawVacaturConfirmation of AwardSix Week Average PayWage Calculation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 11,065 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