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

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1994

United Transportation Union Local Unions 385 & 77 v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by the United Transportation Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (collectively, 'the Union') against Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company ('Metro'). The Union challenges Metro's Rule P as a violation of 45 U.S.C. § 60 (Section 60) of the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). Rule P restricts employees from divulging company information or giving statements about accidents to external parties without company authorization, which the Union argues prevents employees from voluntarily furnishing information to interested parties as protected by Section 60. Metro moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute is governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and its exclusive grievance resolution procedures. The court denied Metro's motion, concluding that the Union's claim involves the interpretation of a federal statute (Section 60) and is therefore within federal jurisdiction, not preempted by the RLA.

Federal Employer's Liability ActFELARailway Labor ActRLASubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentRule 12(b)Labor DisputesCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemption
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1997

Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiffs, 25 current or former Metro-North employees, filed two class action lawsuits alleging employment discrimination based on race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various New York State laws against Metro-North Commuter Railroad. They sought class certification for "all African-American employees of defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad from 1983 through 1996." The Court consolidated the two actions but subsequently denied the motion for class certification. The denial was based on the plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The Court found that the plaintiffs' statistical data and sociological opinion were insufficient to establish company-wide discriminatory practices, and individual claims varied significantly, thus lacking typicality for such a broad class.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationClass ActionClass Certification DenialFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23Commonality RequirementTypicality RequirementStatistical EvidenceSociological OpinionTitle VII
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keefe v. General Accident Insurance

Plaintiff Violet O'Keefe initiated an action against General Accident Insurance Company, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation based on age and sex, violating Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. O'Keefe claimed a discriminatory work environment and unlawful termination following her refusal of a proposed job transfer. The defendant argued O'Keefe's performance was poor and the transfer was a lateral move. The District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the federal discrimination and retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether General Accident's reasons for termination were pretextual. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law claims, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1997

Claim of Coningsby v. New York State Department of Corrections

Claimant, a correction officer in Cayuga County, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while driving to work after purchasing lunch. Despite being in uniform and near his workplace, he was not reimbursed for commute time, nor was he required to travel in his personal vehicle or wear his uniform while commuting. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied benefits, ruling the accident did not occur in the course of his employment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding an insufficient connection between the accident and claimant's work, rejecting arguments of a special errand or dual purpose given the general rule that commuting accidents are not compensable.

Workers' CompensationCommuting AccidentCourse of EmploymentSpecial ErrandDual PurposeCorrection OfficerDenied BenefitsAffirmed DecisionNew York LawAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stead v. Rockland County

A claimant, a lieutenant for the Town of Ramapo Police Department, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on his commute to work on February 19, 1988. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied benefits, concluding the accident did not occur in the course of his employment. The claimant appealed, contending that his presence within his work's geographic area should be a decisive factor. However, the court reiterated that a mere 'purely fortuitous coincidence of time and place' is insufficient and that commute-related accidents are generally not considered employment-related. The court found substantial evidence to uphold the Board's decision, affirming the denial of workers' compensation benefits.

Accidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentCommute Rule ExceptionPolice EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate DecisionEmployment NexusSubstantial Evidence ReviewDenial of Benefits
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamm v. United States

Elizabeth Hamm sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained in a car accident caused by U.S. Army Reserve Specialist Jonathan Goodwin. Goodwin was commuting to a training session when the accident occurred. The central legal question was whether Goodwin was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, according to New York's respondeat superior law. The court found that commuting to work, even for a military reservist, does not typically fall within the scope of employment due to a lack of employer control. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.

Federal Tort Claims ActRespondeat SuperiorScope of EmploymentUS Army ReservistCommutingMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionNegligenceCar AccidentNew York Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Engle v. Reale Construction Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to the claimant. The decedent, a laborer, was killed in a motor vehicle accident while commuting to a distant job site. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied the claim, ruling that the decedent was neither working nor an "outside employee" at the time of the accident. The Board affirmed this decision, which was previously reversed and remitted by the court for further review. On remittal, the Board again found that the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, citing the general rule that injuries sustained during commuting are not compensable, and found no exception applied as the decedent was required to report to a fixed location and was not engaged in work-related activities during the commute.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath Benefits ClaimMotor Vehicle AccidentCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentCommuting Rule ExceptionFixed Place of EmploymentEmployer ControlAppellate ReviewJudicial Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbanti v. MTA Metro North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff Robert Barbanti, formerly an Electronic Specialist at Norfolk Southern Railroad, claims he was fraudulently induced by MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad (Defendant) to leave his job for a supervisory Signal Inspector position with specific pay. Despite being initially hired as a Signal Inspector, a collective bargaining agreement and a subsequent letter agreement with Local 166 led to him being placed in a lower-paying Electronic Technician role. Barbanti sued for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and negligent/reckless misrepresentation in state court, a case which the Defendant removed to federal court arguing preemption by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The court ruled that Barbanti's state law claims are not preempted by the RLA because their resolution does not require the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, as the rights and obligations at issue exist independently of any such agreement. Consequently, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Railway Labor ActPreemptionFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractNegligent MisrepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputesFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMotion to Remand
References
13
Case No. 866 F.Supp.2d 196
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2011

Howard v. MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Wendell Howard, an African-American locomotive engineer trainee, sued his former employer, MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad, for racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following his termination from a training program. Howard alleged discriminatory treatment by his instructors regarding test answers and derogatory remarks, and that his termination for leaving his worksite without proper authorization and insubordination was pretextual. He also claimed other non-African-American trainees were not disciplined similarly. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MTA Metro-North, finding that Howard failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. Subsequently, Howard filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), citing alleged mistakes, fraud by the defendants, and newly discovered evidence concerning other trainees. The court denied this motion, concluding that Howard's arguments were either rearguments of prior points, lacked clear and convincing evidence of fraud, or the "new evidence" was either available during discovery or not sufficiently convincing to warrant relief.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantMotion to Vacate JudgmentRule 60(b)Pretext for DiscriminationLocomotive Engineer Training Program
References
66
Showing 1-10 of 2,551 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