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
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
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. ADJ8488097
Regular
Feb 15, 2019

JOHN ROBERTSON vs. BOSCO OIL, WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE, LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case involves John Robertson's workers' compensation claim against Bosco Oil, adjusted by Liberty Mutual. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Robertson's Petition for Reconsideration. This denial is based on the WCJ's report, which the Board fully adopts and incorporates. The specific reasons for the denial are detailed within the WCJ's report, which was not provided here.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ's reportApplicantDefendantsBosco OilWausau Underwriters InsuranceLiberty MutualADJ8488097
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp.

Elfriede Mayer sued Oil Field Systems Corp. (OFS) and Integrated Energy Inc. (Integrated) alleging securities and common law fraud. Mayer, a limited partner in Mark Energy Partnerships (MEP), claimed misallocation of Integrated stock and insufficient disclosure regarding its arbitrary $10/share valuation, which affected partnership payouts. She also asserted misleading statements about an underwriter and stock performance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Mayer was not deceived. The court found that Mayer had actual knowledge of the facts allegedly withheld, including the arbitrary stock valuation and the method of determining payout, through various disclosures provided by OFS and Integrated. Concluding that no deception occurred, a prerequisite for federal securities claims, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, also declining jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Securities FraudCommon Law FraudLimited PartnershipStock ValuationSummary JudgmentMisallocation of SharesDisclosure RequirementsMaterial FactFiduciary DutyFederal Securities Laws
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Motors Corp. v. Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp.

Plaintiff General Motors Corp. ("GM") obtained a preliminary injunction against defendants Roth and Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp. for trademark infringement related to "Dexron" automatic transmission fluid. Subsequently, defendants moved the court to permit them to repackage and sell the impounded, allegedly infringing goods, or alternatively, to have GM remove the goods from their warehouse, citing health and safety hazards. GM opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion seeking an order holding defendants in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction by distributing a brochure displaying the "Dexron" mark at a trade show. The Court denied defendants' motions to repackage, sell, or remove the goods. While finding defendants technically in civil contempt for the brochure distribution, the Court decided against immediate sanctions, noting the violation appeared inadvertent and GM had not yet demonstrated actual damages, but ordered defendants to provide an accounting and allowed GM to present proof of damages at trial.

Trademark InfringementPreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtCivil ContemptRepackaging of GoodsImpoundment OrderAdvertising ViolationCompensatory DamagesSanctionsTrade Show Brochure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Husted v. Central New York Oil & Gas Co.

Plaintiff Donald Husted, an employee of Collins & Walton Plumbing & Heating Contractors, Inc. (C&W), was injured after falling into an unguarded hole at a gas storage facility owned by Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC (CNYOG). The hole was drilled by Mateo Electric Corporation and allegedly obscured by G. Webster, Inc. Husted and his wife sued CNYOG, Mateo, and Webster for negligence and Labor Law § 200 violations. CNYOG sought indemnification from Mateo, Webster, and C&W. The Supreme Court initially dismissed plaintiff's claims against CNYOG and granted conditional indemnification to CNYOG against Mateo and Webster, while denying it against C&W. The Supreme Court also dismissed CNYOG's third-party complaint against C&W. On appeal, the higher court modified the order, reversing the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against CNYOG, reversing the conditional indemnification against Mateo and Webster, and reversing the dismissal of CNYOG's third-party complaint against C&W. The court found that CNYOG failed to prove it lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition and that questions of fact remained regarding its negligence, making summary judgment on indemnification premature.

Labor Law § 200Workers' Compensation Law § 11General Obligations Law § 5-322.1Premises LiabilityConstruction AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual Indemnification
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2000

Oil Heat Institute of Long Island Insurance Trust v. Gerber Life Insurance

Plaintiff Oil Heat Institute of Long Island Insurance Trust (OHI) sued Gerber Life Insurance Company (Gerber), Island Group Administration, Inc. (IGA), and RMTS Associates, alleging Gerber refused to reimburse stop-loss claims and issue a letter of certification to a lender. OHI had established a self-insurance program, and Gerber issued an aggregate stop-loss (ASL) policy. OHI commenced the action on the day the ASL policy expired, before the attachment point for reimbursement could be calculated and before submitting proper documentation. The Supreme Court denied Gerber's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that OHI failed to demonstrate compliance with the ASL policy's reimbursement terms, lacked material facts to support its claims, and initiated the action prematurely. Both causes of action were dismissed against Gerber.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentAggregate Stop-Loss PolicyContract DisputeReimbursementPolicy TermsAppellate ReviewGood FaithDocumentation RequirementsAgency
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Williams

Amoco Oil appealed two judgments from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning arbitration for uninsured motorist and no-fault benefits. The first judgment, dated January 6, 1977, granted New Hampshire Insurance Company's application to stay arbitration, deeming Amoco Oil's coverage primary and New Hampshire's secondary for uninsured motorist benefits. The second judgment, dated March 30, 1977, permanently stayed arbitration for no-fault benefits under New Hampshire's policy. The Appellate Division affirmed both judgments, concluding that the claimant was "occupying" the Amoco Oil vehicle, making Amoco Oil primarily liable for uninsured motorist benefits. However, the claimant was precluded from receiving these benefits due to already receiving workers' compensation benefits in excess of the maximum, and was also ineligible for no-fault benefits under the New Hampshire policy.

Insurance DisputeArbitration ProceedingsUninsured Motorist CoverageNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' CompensationPrimary vs Secondary LiabilityAppellate DivisionNassau County Supreme CourtVehicle OccupancyBenefit Eligibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Supreme Oil Co., Inc. v. Abondolo

This case involves cross-petitions before District Judge Richard J. Holwell concerning a June 13, 2007 arbitration award. The UFCW Local 174 Commercial Health Care Fund and UFCW Local 174 Commercial Pension Fund ("the Funds") sought confirmation of the award and attorney's fees against Supreme Oil Company, Inc. ("Supreme Oil"), which in turn sought vacatur of the award. The dispute originated from a collective bargaining agreement regarding monthly contributions to the Funds for employee health and pension benefits. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Funds, awarding $294,665 in contributions, liquidated damages, interest, and attorney fees, totaling $399,542.85. Supreme Oil challenged the arbitration award on two grounds: the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement and the exclusion of testimony from its counsel. The Court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding his interpretation drew its essence from the agreement and that the evidentiary ruling did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair. Consequently, the Court confirmed the arbitration award and granted the Funds attorney's fees and costs.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementERISALMRAAttorney's FeesArbitration Award ConfirmationVacaturLabor DisputeBenefit FundsPension Funds
References
26
Case No. ADJ8081931
Regular
Jul 11, 2013

RICARDO LOPEZ vs. RFG OIL, INC., dba VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE

Defendant RFG Oil, Inc. filed a petition for removal arguing they lacked sufficient opportunity for discovery after recently receiving notice of the claim. However, on April 24, 2013, the parties entered into stipulations and the case was ordered off calendar. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for removal as moot because the underlying issue it sought to address was resolved by subsequent agreements. The defendant should have withdrawn their petition once they realized it was moot.

Petition for RemovalMootWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJApplication for Adjudication of ClaimDiscoveryAgreed Medical EvaluatorsOff CalendarStipulationsOrder Dismissing Petition
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 106 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