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

R.M. Perlman Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

This case involves R.M. Perlman, d/b/a Rebecca Moses Collection (RMC), a garment industry employer, suing two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union. The suit stemmed from picketing aimed at compelling RMC to enter into a Hazantown Agreement, which RMC alleged involved violence and caused substantial losses. The amended complaint included federal claims under the National Labor Relations Act and state law claims such as prima facie tort, intentional interference with contractual relations, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims, arguing federal preemption and RMC's failure to meet New York's specific pleading requirements for actions against unincorporated associations. The court found the state law claims were not preempted due to allegations of violent picketing, aligning with exceptions to federal preemption. However, the court ultimately granted the dismissal of the state law claims (counts two through seven) because RMC failed to allege that every single union member authorized or ratified the violent acts, as required by the New York Court of Appeals decision in Martin v. Curran. Additionally, the individual defendants Byer and Mazur were dismissed because the remaining federal claim under the Labor-Management Relations Act does not allow for individual liability. A motion to dismiss Rebecca Moses as a plaintiff was denied, pending further evidence on her standing. Plaintiffs were granted thirty days to replead the dismissed state law claims.

Labor LawFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsUnincorporated AssociationsUnion LiabilityViolent PicketingHazantown AgreementMotion to DismissNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.M. Perlman, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

The case concerns plaintiffs R.M. Perlman Inc. and Rebecca Moses, who initiated an action under the NLRA against two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. Plaintiffs sought damages alleging unfair labor practices related to the unions' picketing and a proposed "Hazantown Agreement." The central legal question involved whether four specific clauses within the agreement were protected by the garment industry proviso to NLRA § 8(e), thus making the unions' actions lawful. The court meticulously examined each contested clause—the Continuing Obligations, Trimmings, Struck Work, and Trucking Clauses—interpreting them within the context of the Hazantown Agreement and relevant legal precedents. Ultimately, the court determined that all challenged clauses fell within the protection of the garment industry proviso, concluding that the unions' picketing was not unlawful. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

National Labor Relations ActGarment Industry ProvisoUnfair Labor PracticesSummary JudgmentLabor UnionsHot Cargo AgreementsHazantown AgreementSecondary PicketingIntegrated Process of ProductionJobbers
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Alto v. 22-24 129th Street, LLC

Plaintiffs Michael D'Alto, Jr. and his wife commenced an action seeking damages for personal injuries under common-law negligence and Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The injured plaintiff fell from a cement truck at a construction site owned by 22-24 129th Street, LLC, and leased to Pacific Lawn Sprinklers, Inc., while preparing cement for delivery. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for Labor Law § 240(1) claims but granted it for other claims, also denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification between the defendants. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Labor Law § 240(1) claims against both defendants, finding the accident within the purview of the law. However, the court granted summary judgment to Pacific Lawn Sprinklers, Inc., dismissing 22-24 129th Street, LLC's cross-claim for contractual indemnification, as the accident did not occur 'on the demised premises' as defined in the lease.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law §240(1)Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLease InterpretationAppellate ReviewElevation RiskProximate Cause
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. 156167/22
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2026

Altamirano v. Frick Collection

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff Segundo Altamirano's motion for summary judgment on claims under Labor Law § 240(1) and Labor Law § 241(6), predicated on Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) and 23-1.22(b)(3). The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this order. The case involved the plaintiff falling into a six-foot deep trench after tripping over a cart on a ramp that lacked guardrails, which spanned a two-foot height differential between two buildings. The court found that the ramp was a safety device that failed to prevent the fall, establishing a valid claim under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the arguments regarding the Labor Law § 241(6) claim became academic.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeRamp AccidentFall from HeightConstruction Site SafetyGuardrail FailureTrench FallAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
3
Case No. CV-22-2040
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of George Mina

Claimant George Mina appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found his failure to attend independent medical examinations (IMEs) unreasonable. Mina, who injured his back in December 2020, missed two scheduled IMEs in Manhattan, citing the unreasonableness of travel from his New Jersey residence. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found no good cause for his absence but directed the employer to schedule an IME within 30 miles of his home. The Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, citing that the IME location in Manhattan (22.3 miles from claimant's residence) was within a "reasonable distance" as per Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (4).

Workers' CompensationIndependent Medical ExaminationIMETravel DistanceUnreasonable RefusalSuspension of PaymentsBack InjuryNew Jersey ResidenceManhattan IMEAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dietz v. Cahill

This case addresses a dispute between the Employer Trustees of the Roofers Local Union No. 22 Pension Fund and its former attorney, Thomas O’Connell, regarding his eligibility for pension benefits under ERISA. The Employer Trustees sought to prevent and recover benefits paid to O’Connell, arguing he did not meet the definition of an 'employee' in the Fund's agreement. O’Connell contended he was a salaried employee and his pension was approved in 1989. The court found O’Connell ineligible for benefits and his pension improperly approved, concluding he was a 'party in interest' under ERISA and thus liable for restitution of wrongfully received benefits. While O’Connell's statute of limitations defense limited recovery to benefits paid after December 31, 1991, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs to recoup these payments and enjoined any further pension disbursements to O’Connell, also dismissing his counterclaim.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsRestitutionParty in InterestPension Plan AdministrationTrustees' PowersEquitable Relief
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2002

Claim of Ostuni v. Town of Ramapo

Claimant appealed from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 22, 2002, which denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review of a prior decision. The prior decision had ruled that claimant did not sustain a work-related injury, citing insufficient credible evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial, finding that the Board fully considered all evidence and no new, previously unavailable evidence was offered to warrant altering its decision. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board’s September 2001 decision that claimant’s injuries were not compensable, as her recurring lower back pain stemmed from injuries predating or following the alleged November 1990 incident, rather than the incident itself. The court also upheld the Board's rejection of contrary testimony as not credible.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryWork-Related InjuryReconsiderationBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousSubstantial EvidenceMedical Testimony
References
5
Case No. ADJ367320 (VNO 0476303) ADJ566883 (LAO 0740861)
Regular
Jun 16, 2015

CRISTINA UGARTE vs. FLINKMAN REALTY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) reconsidered a prior decision that denied separate reimbursement for implanted hardware for lien claimant Pacific Hospital of Long Beach. The Appeals Board found that the WCJ misinterpreted regulations regarding hospital billing and reimbursement. Specifically, the Appeals Board determined that implanted hardware is separately reimbursable under section 9789.22(g) regardless of whether the inpatient services qualify as a cost outlier. Therefore, the Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case for further proceedings to calculate the correct payment for the implanted hardware.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderLien claimantReimbursementImplanted hardwareOutlier feesRegulationsCost outlierInpatient hospital services
References
0
Case No. CV-22-2294, CV-22-2299
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jose Reyes Bonilla

Jose Reyes Bonilla and Marvin Reyes Bonilla, carpenters, filed workers' compensation claims after being injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling to a job site in an employer-provided van. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed decisions that established their claims against XL Specialty Insurance, ruling that their injuries arose out of and in the course of their employment. XL Specialty appealed, arguing its policy did not cover commuting injuries and that it was not the proper carrier. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding XL Specialty failed to preserve its challenge and that the injuries were compensable due to the employer's control over transportation. The court also concluded that XL Specialty's policy exclusion was inapplicable as the transportation was incidental to the project.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment InjuriesCourse of EmploymentEmployer Provided TransportationInsurance Coverage DisputeWrap-up PolicyAppellate ReviewPreclusionPenalties
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 380 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