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. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. 534849
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Robert Perry

Claimant Robert Perry, a correction officer, appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. Initially, Perry filed a claim in January 2017 for left hand and wrist injuries, which was established. He later sought to amend his claim in 2020 to include a causally-related left elbow injury, diagnosed in May 2020 and surgically repaired in February 2021. The Board, reversing a WCLJ decision, found the claim for the elbow injury time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, as it was filed more than two years after the original accident. The Board also denied Perry's application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the claim for the left elbow injury was indeed time-barred and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration, having properly weighed the evidence including conflicting medical records and claimant's testimony.

Workers' Compensation Law § 28Statute of LimitationsTimely FilingClaim AmendmentLeft Elbow InjuryMedical MisdiagnosisWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewFactual IssueSubstantial Evidence
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05827 [174 AD3d 1257]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Perry v. Main Bros Oil Co.

Brian Perry, the claimant, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board which denied his application for review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision. The WCLJ had found that Perry's claim for additional indemnity benefits, stemming from a 1995 work-related injury, was precluded by Workers' Compensation Law § 123 due to his failure to timely apply to reopen the closed case. The Board denied Perry's application for administrative review because his counsel failed to completely fill out the required form RB-89. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board acted within its discretion by enforcing its reasonable regulations regarding the completeness of applications for review.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawBoard RulesApplication for ReviewTimelinessIndemnity BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Law § 123Procedural ComplianceDiscretion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton v. Colvin

Joseph M. Clayton initiated an action against the Social Security Administration's Acting Commissioner, seeking to reverse a denial of his disability benefits and supplemental security income. The core of his appeal revolved around his diagnosed anxiety disorder, panic attacks, and major depressive affective disorder, leading to a hearing officer's initial denial and a subsequent Appeals Council rejection. The District Court identified a critical flaw in the hearing officer's proceedings: the failure to properly apply the "treating physician rule" by not considering Dr. Zollo's submitted medical report, despite an explicit duty to develop the record for mental impairments. Although other arguments from Clayton were dismissed, the court concluded that while total reversal was unwarranted due to the equivocal nature of Dr. Zollo's report, the case required a remand for the hearing officer to re-evaluate the treating physician's opinion.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeSocial Security AdministrationTreating Physician RuleRecord Development DutyMental ImpairmentAnxiety DisorderPanic AttacksMajor Depressive Affective DisorderResidual Functional Capacity
References
15
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03890
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2023

Matter of Perry v. DOCCS Clinton Corr. Facility

Claimant Robert Perry, a correction officer, initially filed a workers' compensation claim in January 2017 for injuries to his left hand and wrist. This claim was established, leading to an award for schedule loss of use of his left hand in September 2019. Subsequently, in May 2020, Perry was diagnosed with left elbow epicondylitis, which he sought to include as a causally-related injury to his existing claim. The employer and carrier argued the amendment was untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially permitted the amendment, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, deeming the left elbow claim time-barred due to not being filed within two years of the original accident. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board properly found no evidence of an injury to the left elbow in claimant's medical records prior to May 2020, and that the Board, as the sole arbiter of credibility, was free to prioritize medical records over claimant's conflicting testimony regarding earlier elbow pain, thus upholding the denial of the claim and the subsequent denial of reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation LawTimeliness of ClaimLeft Elbow InjuryMedical MisdiagnosisSchedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate DivisionCorrectional OfficerClaim AmendmentStatute of Limitations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centeno-Bernuy v. Perry

Plaintiffs, H-2A agricultural workers, sued defendant Donald A. Perry for retaliating against them after they filed a lawsuit against Becker Farms (owned by Perry's family) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSAWPA). Perry allegedly made baseless allegations to various government agencies, including the INS and Homeland Security, that the plaintiffs were terrorists and members of a 'sleeper cell,' aiming to deter them from continuing their original lawsuit. The Court found that Perry's actions caused irreparable harm to the plaintiffs' ability to pursue their rights and that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their retaliation claims. Consequently, the Court denied Perry's motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, forbidding Perry from further contacting government officials about the plaintiffs and their attorneys, and from any further retaliation.

Preliminary InjunctionRetaliation ClaimFair Labor Standards ActMigrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection ActH-2A VisaTerrorism AllegationsImmigration EnforcementCollateral Estoppel DefenseFirst Amendment ChallengeLabor Law Violation
References
26
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01869 [181 AD3d 1113]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Perry v. All Am. Sch. Bus Corp.

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Diane Perry, a school bus attendant, sustained multiple injuries when she was struck by a motor vehicle while waiting for her assigned bus. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found that her injuries arose from an accident in the course of her employment and made awards. The employer and its carrier appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied because they failed to completely answer question 15 on the RB-89 form, which required specifying the objection and when it was interposed, as mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1) and (2) (ii). The Board upheld this denial, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both the Board's decision and amended decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's enforcement of its procedural rules.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAdministrative ReviewApplication DenialRegulatory ComplianceAppellate ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeScope of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentInjury CompensationBoard Discretion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. O'NEIL

Michael A. Perry, a former aide with the U.S. Customs Service, sued the Secretary of the Treasury, alleging discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, age, color, and religion under Title VII. Perry was terminated after violating a 'Last Chance Agreement' following multiple sexual harassment complaints. He pursued administrative remedies by first appealing to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and then filing an EEO complaint. The District Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that Perry failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in a timely fashion by not raising discrimination claims with the MSPB and not filing his civil action within the prescribed 30-day period. The court also found no grounds for equitable tolling.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationFederal Employee TerminationAdministrative ExhaustionSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign Immunity WaiverLast Chance Agreement ViolationMerit Systems Protection BoardEqual Employment OpportunityTimeliness of Filing
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. Sony Music

Adam Perry, a pro se plaintiff, filed an action against Sony Music Entertainment Inc. under Title VII, alleging unlawful racial discrimination after his employment as a mailroom clerk was terminated. Perry claimed he was discriminated against based on his race following an incident of insubordination with his supervisor. Sony moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim or as untimely. Despite extensions, Perry's amended complaint lacked sufficient specific factual allegations of racial discrimination and his explanation for late filing (incarceration) was not deemed sufficient for equitable tolling. The Court found the allegations insufficient to satisfy pleading standards and granted Sony's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Title VIIRacial DiscriminationEmployment TerminationInsubordinationPro Se LitigationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingPleading StandardsFederal Civil Procedure
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 76 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