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

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 1979

Wm. Chalson & Co. v. Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond & Watchcase Workers Union Local No. 1

The plaintiff, Wm. Chalson & Co., Inc., sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond & Watchcase Workers Union Local No. 1 to prevent arbitration. Chalson argued it was not bound by a collective bargaining agreement signed on March 21, 1979, as it had unilaterally withdrawn from the multi-employer bargaining unit on March 16, 1979, citing an alleged impasse in negotiations. The Union contended that Chalson's withdrawal was ineffective and sought to compel arbitration under the new agreement. The court determined that the issue of whether Chalson had a duty to arbitrate should be decided by the court, not an arbitrator. Although the court assumed Chalson's withdrawal was an unjustified unfair labor practice due to a lack of actual impasse, it concluded that Chalson's agency with the Association was terminated. Therefore, the Association lacked authority to bind Chalson to the new agreement. Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff, permanently enjoining arbitration between the parties under the March 21, 1979 contract, without prejudice to the NLRB's statutory jurisdiction.

Labor disputecollective bargainingarbitrationcontract terminationmulti-employer bargainingunfair labor practicedeclaratory judgmentinjunctive reliefagency lawNLRB jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cortland Glass Co. v. Angello

The petitioner sought to prohibit the Commissioner of Labor from allowing Iron Workers Local Union 417 to intervene in an administrative hearing. This hearing was initiated by the Department of Labor to investigate allegations that the petitioner failed to pay prevailing wages on public work projects, specifically by paying glaziers' rates instead of ironworkers' rates for preglazed window installation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's CPLR article 78 proceeding, affirming the Commissioner's authority to permit permissive intervention in adjudicatory proceedings. On appeal, the court rejected the union's argument that the appeal was not ripe for review and ultimately affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment. The decision clarified that administrative intervention rules are broader than judicial standing requirements and found no clear legal bar violated by the Hearing Officer's grant of intervention.

Administrative LawInterventionProhibition (Writ)CPLR Article 78Labor LawPrevailing WagePublic Work ProjectsAgency DiscretionRipeness DoctrineStanding to Sue
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07002 [188 AD3d 1524]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Matter of Walczak v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

Claimant Marian Walczak, an arborist, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that deemed his claim for occupational hearing loss untimely. Walczak worked for Asplundh Tree Expert Co. from 1998 to 2006 and filed his claim in 2017, listing the onset of hearing loss as December 27, 2006. The Board found the claim time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, asserting that Walczak knew or should have known of his hearing loss and its probable work-related cause by January 19, 2012, given his testimony and medical records. The Appellate Division affirmed, emphasizing that specialized medical knowledge is not required to trigger the 90-day limitations period under Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb, and deference is given to the Board's findings of fact and credibility assessments.

Occupational Hearing LossTime-Barred ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bbStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementKnowledge of DiseaseMedical Diagnosis Not RequiredAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00606 [191 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Pisarski v. Accurate Plumbing & Heating Co.

Claimant Michael Pisarski established a workers' compensation claim for occupational bilateral knee and shoulder injuries after retiring as a union plumber. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately set the date of disablement as July 12, 2016, and a Worker's Compensation Law Judge ruled Norguard Insurance Company, which covered the employer during Pisarski's last employment, was the liable carrier, as no active policy was found on the disablement date. Norguard appealed, distinguishing its case from Matter of Cammarata, where the employer had ceased business. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board erred by not determining the business status of Accurate Plumbing and Heating Co. on the date of disablement. This determination is crucial to establish whether Accurate Plumbing was required to maintain an insurance policy or if the Uninsured Employers Fund should be responsible. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDate of DisablementInsurance Carrier LiabilityUninsured Employers FundAppellate ReviewRemittalBusiness Status DeterminationPolicy CoverageKnee Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1988

Richiusa v. Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co.

Cologero Richiusa suffered personal injuries at Flushing Truck Repair Co. and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits as an employee of Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co., Inc. Richiusa then initiated a negligence action against both Flushing Truck and Kahn Lumber. The Supreme Court denied both defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court concluding that the workers' compensation award served as an exclusive remedy against Kahn and that Richiusa was a special employee of Flushing Truck, thereby barring the action against both defendants. The complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewNegligenceEmployment StatusStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03999 [229 AD3d 1307]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2024

Bates v. Gannett Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs, including Richard L. Bates, Francis L. Goodsell et al., and Ballard Tackett et al., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had granted defendant Gannett Co., Inc.'s motion to stay their Child Victims Act (CVA) actions and refer the claims to the Workers' Compensation Board. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for sexual abuse by a supervisor during their employment in the 1980s. The Supreme Court had also held the plaintiffs' cross-motions to amend their complaints in abeyance. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this order, holding that questions concerning the CVA's revival of time-barred workers' compensation claims and the limitation of plaintiffs to such benefits are matters of pure statutory interpretation and law, falling within the court's jurisdiction, not the Workers' Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction. The Appellate Division denied the defendant's motion and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings on these legal questions and to rule on the plaintiffs' cross-motions to amend their complaints.

Child Victims ActSexual AbuseWorkers' CompensationScope of EmploymentPrimary JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewRemittalPleading AmendmentCourt Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03230 [238 AD3d 1441]
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Matter of Juncal v. Maspeth Remodeling Co.

This case involves an appeal by Maspeth Remodeling Co. and its carrier from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Claimant Miguel Juncal suffered work-related physical injuries and was awarded temporary total disability benefits. The carrier sought to retroactively reduce these benefits after an independent medical examination, citing the 20-day rule for hearings under 12 NYCRR 300.23 (b) (2). The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, holding that benefits should continue at the temporary total disability rate until the hearing date in March 2023. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, clarifying that the 20-day timeframe for scheduling a hearing is directory and aspirational, not mandatory, and the Board's failure to adhere to it does not automatically mandate a reduction or suspension of a claimant's benefits.

Workers' CompensationTemporary DisabilityBenefit ReductionIndependent Medical ExaminationAdministrative Procedure20-Day RuleStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardDisability Benefits
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 24,033 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