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. LAO 801322
Regular
May 23, 2008

O.C. MARSHALL (Deceased) JENNIFER MARSHALL (Widow) vs. ARCO/BRITISH PETROLEUM; ESIS

This case concerns a widow's appeal of a denial of workers' compensation benefits for her husband's death. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, finding the death was due to natural causes and not his employment as a pipe fitter for Arco/British Petroleum. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the denial, finding the applicant's medical expert's opinion lacked substantial evidence due to an inaccurate history and incomplete analysis of the decedent's medical records and family history.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEatherosclerotic diseasehypertension
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hickey-McAllister v. British Airways

Plaintiff, an employee of British Airways, challenged the revocation of her identification hologram and access to Customs Service security areas, suing British Airways, Allan Smith, Robert Rubin, the Customs Service, and Frank Anton. She alleged First Amendment retaliation by Anton, conspiracy under Section 1985(3) against multiple defendants, and New York State Human Rights Law claims for gender discrimination. The court dismissed the Bivens claim against Anton due to qualified immunity, the Section 1985(3) claims for insufficient particularity and lack of state action, and the NYSHRL claims by declining supplemental jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim against the Customs Service for violating its own regulations regarding notice and hearing was not dismissed, based on the Accardi doctrine.

First Amendment RightsFifth Amendment RightsQualified ImmunityBivens ClaimSection 1985(3) ClaimConspiracyPublic Concern SpeechRetaliationCustoms Service RegulationsAccardi Doctrine
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2015

Gesualdi v. Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees and Fiduciaries of various Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training, and Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Funds, initiated an action against Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc. to recover unpaid liabilities and contributions. This action arose from two audits that identified delinquent contributions and the defendant's complete withdrawal from the Funds. Following Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.'s default, the Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke recommended granting the motion and awarding specific damages. District Judge Spatt subsequently adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, granting the default judgment and ordering damages totaling $156,898.74, along with daily interest, liquidated damages, audit fees, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Default JudgmentERISAUnpaid ContributionsWithdrawal LiabilityEmployee BenefitsMulti-employer PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementPrejudgment InterestLiquidated Damages
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 1995

Shafii v. British Airways

Seyed Shafii, a former British Airways reservations agent, brought an action against his former employer for breach of contract and slander following his termination. This litigation stemmed from a workplace dispute and a subsequent mediation agreement, which Shafii alleged British Airways violated. The case, originally filed in state court, was removed to federal court. The court denied Shafii's motions to remand and for sanctions, determining that his contract claims were preempted by the Railway Labor Act and that federal subject matter jurisdiction was lacking for the "minor disputes." Conversely, the court granted British Airways' motions to dismiss the complaint and to enjoin Shafii from initiating further vexatious litigation against the airline or its employees without prior court approval, citing his extensive history of repetitive lawsuits.

Breach of ContractSlanderDefamationEmployment LawRailway Labor Act (RLA)Federal PreemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionVexatious LitigationInjunction
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donkor v. British Airways, Corp.

Nana Serwaa Donkor sued British Airways and YLJ Travel Service in New York State Civil Court after she was detained and deported by British Immigration during a flight layover, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and personal injury. The incident stemmed from a flight delay causing her to miss a connection and lack a required transit visa, as well as the confiscation of her belongings. British Airways removed the case to federal court, asserting preemption by the Warsaw Convention and the Airline Deregulation Act. However, the federal court found that Donkor's claims, particularly those concerning the airline's alleged abandonment and negligence after disembarkation, did not fall within the preemptive scope of either the Convention's liability articles or the Act's provisions. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the New York State Civil Court due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Airline LiabilityInternational Air TravelWarsaw ConventionAirline Deregulation ActFederal PreemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionRemand OrderPassenger RightsNegligence ClaimsBreach of Contract
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Coastal Shipping and Southern Petroleum

Petitioner Coastal Shipping Limited sought an order compelling a consolidated arbitration of separate claims against respondent Southern Petroleum Tankers Limited. These claims stemmed from two distinct bareboat charter agreements. Coastal argued that commonalities in law and fact warranted consolidation. Southern Petroleum countered that the arbitration clauses, being silent on consolidation, prevented such an order, which would amount to an impermissible reformation of the contracts. The Court, aligning with previous critiques of expansive interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act, concluded it lacked the authority to compel consolidated arbitration without explicit agreement from the parties. Consequently, the motion for consolidated arbitration was denied, and the parties were directed to proceed with independent arbitrations for each dispute.

ArbitrationConsolidated ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract LawBareboat Charter AgreementsAdmiralty JurisdictionDistrict Court DecisionDenial of MotionMaritime LawDispute Resolution
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boswell v. Leemilt's Petroleum, Inc.

Plaintiffs Thomas Boswell and his family purchased property next to a gas station owned by Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc. and leased by Getty Petroleum Corporation in September 1988, soon noticing a strong gasoline odor. They later discovered a confirmed leakage from underground storage tanks had been reported by Getty in May 1988, initiating remediation efforts by Groundwater Technology, Inc. (GTI), but plaintiffs were not informed of the contamination or pre-purchase property tests. In May 1993, Boswell learned of contamination through a GTI request to place monitoring wells and observed blackening on his home's wall, subsequently receiving formal notification from the DEC. Plaintiffs initiated legal action in September 1994, asserting claims for trespass, nuisance, and Navigation Law violations due to gasoline seepage and vapors, seeking damages and remediation costs. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants based on the Statute of Limitations; however, the appellate court modified this, ruling that the property damage claims accrued in May 1993 and were thus timely, while Navigation Law claims had not yet accrued.

Environmental ContaminationGasoline LeakageProperty DamageStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTrespassNuisanceUnderground Storage TanksDiscovery Rule
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Joichin v. British Leyland Motors Inc.

Plaintiff filed suit against British Leyland Motors and Town and Country Auto Sales, Inc. for breach of warranties, and against Sharp and Jannie, an auctioneer, and a car purchaser for alleged due process violations related to the sale of her car under the New York Lien Law. British Leyland Motors and Town and Country Auto Sales, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint against them, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the state law warranty claims lacked a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal constitutional claims. The court agreed, finding no factual overlap to support pendent jurisdiction for the breach of warranty claims against the moving defendants. Consequently, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.

Pendent JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissBreach of WarrantyDue ProcessFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)New York Lien LawFourteenth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionCar Sale Dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ohio Reinsurance Corp. v. British National Insurance

Plaintiff Ohio Reinsurance Corporation sued British National Insurance Company Limited and British National Life Insurance Society Limited in the Southern District of New York, seeking reformation of a reinsurance contract and a declaration of rights. Ohio Re contended an unwritten understanding regarding casualty insurance limits led to overpayment, while defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration. Citing a broad arbitration clause in the contract and the Federal Arbitration Act, the court found the dispute arbitrable. The court rejected Ohio Re's arguments that contract reformation was outside the arbitration scope or an English arbitrator's power. Consequently, the defendants' motion to stay the action pending arbitration was granted.

Reinsurance ContractContract ReformationArbitration ClauseFederal Arbitration ActStay of ProceedingsDiversity JurisdictionEnglish LawSouthern District of New YorkCivil ProcedureContract Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. British Airways PLC

This case involves labor unions (plaintiffs) suing British Airways (defendant), an international air carrier, under the Railway Labor Act. The plaintiffs alleged that British Airways violated the status quo by subcontracting reconstruction work at its John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) terminal. The dispute arose after the defendant served notice of intended changes to their collective bargaining agreement, including a modification to the 'scope' clause regarding subcontracting. Plaintiffs argued that the subcontracting constituted a 'major dispute' and sought injunctive relief. The court, however, found that the defendant's action did not violate the status quo because the project was unprecedented and did not impact current employees. Consequently, the court ruled the dispute was 'minor' and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, dismissing the complaint.

Railway Labor ActStatus QuoMajor DisputeMinor DisputeSubcontractingCollective Bargaining AgreementPreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeAirline IndustryJFK Terminal
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 65 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