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

Gilman Brothers Inc. v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.

The plaintiff, Gilman Brothers Inc., sued Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (PMM) and individual defendants Burrows and McLaughlin for federal securities law violations and common law claims. The plaintiff alleged that PMM aided and abetted a scheme to defraud Gilman Brothers Inc. during its purchase of a majority stock interest in Systems for Advanced Information Inc. PMM moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were time-barred under Massachusetts' statute of limitations. The court applied the two-year Massachusetts statute of limitations, finding the cause of action arose in April 1972. Although a federal tolling doctrine applied, the discovery of the fraud in July 1975 initiated the two-year period, rendering the December 1977 action untimely. Consequently, the court granted PMM's motion to dismiss the securities fraud claims and also dismissed the state common law claims.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsFederal Tolling DoctrineMassachusetts LawAccounting ServicesAiding and AbettingStock PurchaseMotion to DismissCommon Law ClaimsFinancial Statements
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salazar-Martinez v. Fowler Brothers, Inc.

Plaintiff Eustacio Salazar-Martinez sued Fowler Brothers, Inc., alleging violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Laws for failing to reimburse pre-employment travel, visa, and recruitment expenses, which allegedly reduced his first-week wages below minimum wage. Defendants sought summary judgment and dismissal of various claims. The court denied summary judgment, finding that pre-employment travel and visa expenses are primarily for the employer's benefit and must be reimbursed to avoid minimum wage violations, and that factual issues regarding recruitment fees remained. The court also denied dismissal for declaratory relief and for claims from 2006, 2007, and 2010, but granted dismissal for claims from 2003-2005. The case was referred for further pretrial matters, including class certification.

H-2A visa programFLSANew York Labor LawMinimum WageWage and HourReimbursementPre-employment expensesTravel expensesVisa costsRecruitment fees
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson Brothers v. Textile Workers Union

Plaintiff Wilson Brothers initiated a lawsuit against the Textile Workers Union of America, C.I.O., alleging a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, specifically concerning vacation pay disputes. The plaintiff sought to stay arbitration, while the defendant moved to compel arbitration and stay the court proceedings. The court found that both the underlying vacation pay dispute and the disagreement over arbitration procedure were matters properly to be determined by arbitration. The jurisdiction of the court was invoked under the Labor Management Relations Act. Ultimately, the court granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, denying the plaintiff's motion to stay arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActVacation Pay DisputeFederal JurisdictionGrievance ProcedureStay ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationContract InterpretationUnion
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1994

National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Co.

Plaintiffs, the National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) and Local 41 Funds, initiated this action under ERISA to recover delinquent contributions from Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Company, Inc., Kenneth P. Heary, and Edwin W. Heary. The defendants asserted counterclaims and a third-party complaint, alleging RICO violations and other claims against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), National Electrical Contractor’s Association (NECA), Local 41, and individual union officers, claiming the collective bargaining agreements were invalid due to an alleged extortion scheme. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge Arcara reviewed de novo and adopted. The Court granted NEBF's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, dismissing the defendants' counterclaims. Motions to dismiss third-party claims against IBEW and NECA were granted, while Local 41's and other individual third-party defendants' dismissal motions were granted in part and denied in part, primarily concerning RICO allegations. The case was referred back for damages determination.

ERISARICOLMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentRacketeering ActivityExtortionHobbs ActFraud in the Inducement
References
18
Case No. ADJ2996723 (LAO 0841594), ADJ4157903 (LAO 0848595), ADJ4177198 (LAO 0848596)
Regular
May 30, 2017

JESUS HERNANDEZ vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIOS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Warner Brothers Studios' petition for removal in the case of Jesus Hernandez. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result from denial and reconsideration is inadequate. The WCAB found that Warner Brothers failed to demonstrate either of these conditions based on the WCJ's report. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportFinal DecisionAdverse DecisionApplicant
References
2
Case No. ADJ1799490 VNO 0531984 ADJ1619817 VNO 1619817
Regular
Feb 01, 2013

TONI PARKER vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIOS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Case No. ADJ1799490, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's award, returning the case for further proceedings because Warner Brothers' due process rights were violated by a lack of service of rating instructions and the DEU rating. In Case No. ADJ1619817, the Board dismissed Warner Brothers' reconsideration petition as untimely but granted removal on its own motion to clarify administrative responsibility. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings in ADJ1619817 but deferred the designation of the administering defendant, also returning it for trial-level determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardDue ProcessRating InstructionsDisability Evaluation UnitDEUPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryBilateral Upper Extremities
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crotona 1967 Corp. v. Vidu Bros.

Plaintiff Crotona 1967 Corporation sought summary judgment to enforce a promissory note against Vidu Brother Corp. and a personal guaranty against Harshad Patel. Defendants argued fraudulent inducement regarding the real estate transaction and the temporary nature of Patel's guaranty. The court granted summary judgment against Vidu Brother Corp., finding their fraudulent inducement defense invalid due to a lack of reasonable reliance and specific contractual clauses. However, a genuine issue of material fact regarding the intended temporary duration of Patel's personal guaranty precluded summary judgment against him. The court denied attorney's fees without a hearing on reasonableness.

Promissory NoteSummary JudgmentFraudulent InducementPersonal GuarantyContract LawReal Estate TransactionStatute of FraudsDiversity JurisdictionCorporate LiabilityIndividual Liability
References
56
Case No. ADJ6937263
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

PAUL ESCUDERO vs. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Cisco Systems' petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Cisco failed to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his workers' compensation rights. Specifically, the employer did not provide legally required notices, and the applicant's vague consultation with a civil attorney did not constitute sufficient actual knowledge to start the statute of limitations. The Board also noted that actual knowledge cannot be imputed solely by an employee's representation by counsel.

Statute of limitationsTollingActual knowledgeWorkers' compensation rightsEmployer noticeCivil attorneyImputed knowledgePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judge
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03868 [150 AD3d 480]
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2017

McMahon v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to Cohen Brothers Realty Corp., thereby dismissing the complaint filed by Michael McMahon et al. The core issue was whether the injured plaintiff was a special employee of Cohen Brothers Realty Corp., which would invoke the workers' compensation law's exclusivity provision as a bar to the lawsuit. Defendant presented evidence demonstrating its control over the plaintiff's hiring, supervision, and work duties, along with providing necessary equipment and materials. Despite plaintiff's attempts to counter this with evidence showing the general employer as the payor and listed employer, the court found insufficient factual dispute to overturn the special employee determination. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the dismissal, concluding that the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law applied.

Summary JudgmentSpecial Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAppellate ReviewEmployment Control TestProperty Management AgreementDismissal of ComplaintLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
3
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00957 [136 AD3d 783]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2016

Sanchez v. Metro Builders Corp.

Juan P. Sanchez initiated a personal injury lawsuit after falling three stories from a roof during snow removal, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against general contractor Metro Builders Corp. and subcontractor JMZ Builders, Inc. Metro, in turn, sought indemnification from JMZ and Sanchez's employers, Cocos Brothers. The Appellate Division ultimately granted Sanchez's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against Metro, finding Metro to be a statutory agent of the owner. Concurrently, Metro's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was granted, while its claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) were denied on the merits. Metro's indemnification claims against JMZ and Cocos Brothers were dismissed as untimely.

Workplace FallConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsSummary Judgment GrantedGeneral ContractorStatutory AgentIndemnification ClaimsAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySafety Devices
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 235 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