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. ADJ2972614 (VNO 0551694) ADJ3199572 (VNO 0558860)
Regular
Jan 31, 2012

ALI POURFARZAD vs. PALMIRA ASSOCIATES, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant claiming industrial injuries to his spine, psychological system, and central nervous system (sleep disorder) from two separate dates of employment. The administrative law judge initially found injury to the psychological and central nervous systems but required further development of the record for permanent disability and apportionment. The Appeals Board determined that neither party presented substantial evidence regarding the causation and permanency of the claimed psychological and central nervous system injuries. Consequently, these issues are deferred, and the record will be developed further, potentially through an Agreed Medical Evaluator or a court-appointed physician.

Petition for ReconsiderationPartial Joint Findings of FactPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Substantial EvidenceDevelop the RecordAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Regular PhysicianLabor Code Section 5701CausationPsychological Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Young v. Central Square Central School District

Plaintiff sued Central Square Central School District under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discrimination due to her multiple sclerosis diagnosis and the District's failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The District moved for summary judgment, arguing collateral estoppel from a prior administrative hearing that found Plaintiff unfit to teach, and also sought to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel. The Court denied the summary judgment motion, ruling that collateral estoppel did not bar the litigation of reasonable accommodation issues. However, the motion to disqualify Plaintiff's law firm, O'Hara & O'Connell, was granted because an associate had previously worked on the District's defense in related matters, creating an appearance of impropriety. Consequently, Plaintiff must secure new legal representation or proceed pro se within ninety days.

Americans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActReasonable AccommodationMultiple SclerosisEmployment DiscriminationCollateral EstoppelAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestSummary JudgmentTeacher Disability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sanders v. Langaster Central School System

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed March 1, 1979, which discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15(8). The claimant's decedent, a school grounds keeper for Lancaster Central School System, suffered a fatal myocardial infarction in 1975. The employer's carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, alleging the decedent had a prior physical impairment of coronary artery disease. The core issue on appeal was whether the employer had knowledge of this prior impairment. Testimony from the school superintendent and other witnesses indicated no such knowledge or perception of permanency. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the employer lacked the requisite knowledge.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer KnowledgePrior ImpairmentMyocardial InfarctionSubstantial EvidenceBoard DecisionAppellate AffirmationReimbursement ClaimCoronary Artery Disease
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

System Federation No. 152, Railway Employees' Department v. Penn Central Co.

This case addresses a protracted labor dispute between System Federation No. 152 and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) concerning job classifications and an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement by a defendant railroad dating back to 1958. The current District Court opinion, authored by Judge Edward Weinfeld, aims to clarify a 1968 remand order issued by Judge Pollack, which sent the controversy back to the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The remand itself was a consequence of a Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the necessity of including all relevant parties, like TWU, in Board proceedings. A subsequent deadlock emerged regarding the ongoing status of the neutral referee who had participated in prior Board hearings. Judge Weinfeld ultimately ruled that the referee is to remain a member of the Board throughout the remanded proceedings until a final and binding award is rendered, thereby preventing further procedural delays.

Union JurisdictionLabor ArbitrationFederal Court JurisdictionAdministrative LawRailway IndustryCollective BargainingStatutory InterpretationRemand ProcedureJudicial ReviewDispute Resolution
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernhard v. Central Parking System of New York, Inc.

The plaintiffs, trustees of the Health Fund 917 and Local 917 Pension Fund, initiated an action against Central Parking System of New York, Inc. and Sonya Mitchell under ERISA for unpaid contributions. While the substantive issues of the case were settled, the plaintiffs sought to recover attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). The District Court examined whether a "judgment in favor of the plan" is a mandatory prerequisite for awarding attorneys' fees under this statutory provision. After reviewing relevant case law and legislative history, the Court concluded that such a judgment is indeed required. Since no judgment was entered in favor of the plan in this settled matter, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, ordering the case closed.

ERISAEmployee Retirement Income Security Actattorneys' feescostsjudgmentsettlementplancontributionsdelinquent contributions29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natale v. Central Parking Systems of New York, Inc.

The case involves trustees of Health and Pension Funds (Plaintiffs) suing Central Parking System of New York, Inc. and Sonya Mitchell (Defendants) under ERISA for alleged unpaid contributions for certain employees. The Plaintiffs claimed an audit revealed unpaid contributions, arguing that fourteen disputed employees (managers, assistant managers, and supervisors) were covered by Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs). The Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, contending these employees were supervisory, had 'Status Authority,' and were thus excluded from the CBAs. The Court granted the Defendant's motion, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that contributions were owed for the disputed employees, as their evidence (audit report, deposition testimony, and previous contributions) was insufficient to prove these employees lacked Status Authority or were covered by the CBAs.

ERISAEmployee ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementsSummary JudgmentSupervisory EmployeesFiduciary DutyPayroll AuditUnpaid ContributionsLabor LawRule 56
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sperry Systems Management Division v. Engineers Union, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers

This case concerns a labor dispute between Sperry Systems Management Division and the Engineers Union regarding subcontracting. Sperry sought to enjoin arbitration, while the Union counterclaimed to compel it, both filing motions for summary judgment. The central issue was whether a grievance, challenging the presence of subcontractor employees in Sperry's plant, was arbitrable under a collective bargaining agreement's clause explicitly excluding subcontracting decisions. The court, led by Judge Bauman, determined that the issue of arbitrability was for judicial determination, not the arbitrator. Finding the exclusionary clause clear and unambiguous, the court granted Sperry's motion, thereby enjoining the arbitration and denying the Union's counterclaim.

Labor DisputeArbitration EnjoinedCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontracting ClauseSummary JudgmentArbitrabilityContract InterpretationGrievance ProcedureLabor Management Relations ActExclusionary Clause
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regensdorfer v. Central Buffalo Project Corp.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant Central Buffalo Project Corporation and third-party defendant United States Shoe Corporation, doing business as Casual Corner, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. An out-of-possession landlord, Central Buffalo, was not liable as it relinquished control, was not contractually obligated to repair nonstructural defects, and did not have notice of the condition. The loose stairway treads were deemed a non-structural defect. Additionally, Casual Corner was contractually obligated to indemnify Central Buffalo. The amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, effective September 10, 1996, was deemed prospective only and not applicable to this action.

Landlord LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawStructural DefectNotice of DefectAppellate ReviewOut-of-Possession LandlordLease Agreement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeMeurers v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System

Petitioner, a custodian, sought retroactive Tier 1 retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 803, claiming he was not offered the opportunity to join the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System upon commencing employment with respondent East Syracuse-Minoa Central School System (ESM) in 1973. ESM opposed the claim, asserting petitioner had participated in a procedure to be informed of his options, leading the Retirement System and subsequently the Comptroller to deny his application. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which was initially dismissed by Supreme Court due to the petitioner's failure to file a notice of claim upon ESM as per Education Law § 3813 (1). The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that a notice of claim was not a condition precedent for this type of proceeding, and even if it were, ESM had substantial notice. Furthermore, the court found the Comptroller's determination was not supported by substantial evidence and lacked a rational basis, citing prior case law which established that a claimant's own testimony can suffice to meet the burden of proof for retroactive membership.

Retroactive Retirement BenefitsCPLR Article 78Notice of ClaimEducation Law § 3813Retirement and Social Security Law § 803Substantial Evidence StandardAdministrative ReviewSchool District LiabilityEmployee BenefitsTier 1 Benefits
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson v. Greenburgh Central School District Number 7

Lawson, a school bus driver for Shore Transportation Co., was dismissed after the Central School District alleged erratic driving and demanded his removal. Shore had a contract with the district giving the latter approval rights over drivers. Lawson initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, converted to a declaratory judgment action, to annul his dismissal and compel the appellants (Central School District and Shore) to grant an evidentiary hearing. The appellants' motion to dismiss was denied. The court affirmed the denial, ruling that the school district's substantial contractual and statutory control over driver employment, even without direct employment, could entitle Lawson to procedural due process protections, thus stating a valid cause of action for a hearing.

Procedural Due ProcessEmployment TerminationDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78School Bus DriverContractual ControlEvidentiary HearingAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstitutional Rights
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,721 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