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

Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP

Plaintiff Stephanie Sutherland sued her former employer, Ernst & Young LLP (E & Y), alleging violations of the FLSA and New York labor laws for unpaid overtime. E & Y moved to dismiss or stay proceedings and compel individual arbitration, citing an arbitration agreement with a class waiver. The court denied E & Y's motion, finding the class waiver provision unenforceable. The court reasoned that enforcing the waiver would make it prohibitively expensive for Sutherland to pursue her claims individually, effectively granting E & Y de facto immunity from liability. Despite the unenforceability of the class waiver, the court noted it could not compel class arbitration due to the agreement's silence on the matter, following the precedent of Stolt-Nielsen.

FLSAArbitration AgreementClass Action WaiverOvertime WagesEmployment LawStatutory RightsEnforceabilityCollective ActionEconomic FeasibilityJudicial Forum
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dibble v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

The Supreme Court order was unanimously modified on appeal. The modification involved deleting the provision that granted the third-party defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to provide authorization for all of the plaintiff's workers' compensation records and medical records. The court reasoned that CPLR 3102 [a] does not contain any provision allowing a third-party defendant to obtain such authorization from the plaintiff. The order, as modified, was affirmed without costs.

Discovery DisputeWorkers' Compensation RecordsMedical Records DisclosureMotion to CompelCPLR 3102 [a]Appellate Court RulingPlaintiff RightsThird-Party Defendant ActionErie County Supreme CourtOrder Modification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Crawford

The claimant, along with her husband, owned E & F Fuel Oil Service, Inc., a fuel oil and repair business. When her husband became disabled, the claimant, possessing limited office skills, struggled to find a replacement mechanic due to the disparity between her business's pay rates and union wages. Faced with declining profitability, the couple sold the business, after which the claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits. Although an Administrative Law Judge initially awarded benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, deeming the business closure non-compelling and the claimant's job-seeking efforts insufficient. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding ample evidence of compelling reasons for the business closure due to its declining state and the critical loss of the husband's expertise, and that the claimant's efforts to find a replacement were reasonable, thereby remitting the case for further proceedings.

Voluntary QuittingGood CauseUnemployment Benefits DisqualificationBusiness ClosureDeclining BusinessCompelling ReasonsEfforts to MitigateUnemployment Insurance AppealAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. ADJ7271031
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

THOMAS DACK vs. CEMEX, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

This case involves the defendant's Petition for Removal after the WCJ denied their request to compel the applicant's attendance at a QME examination. The applicant's attorney's office had previously stated the applicant would not attend QME evaluations until litigation was resolved and attempted to strike a QME. The Appeals Board is giving notice of its intention to grant the defendant's petition and compel the applicant's attendance, unless the applicant shows good cause within ten days. The Board finds the defendant has presented a prima facie case for compelling the examination, noting a lack of formal objection from the applicant.

Petition to CompelPanel QMELabor Code section 4062.2WCJPetition for RemovalApplicant objectionGood causeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial injury
References
0
Case No. 95 CIV. 0004 (LMM)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between Standard Tallow Corp. & Kil-Management A/S

The petitioner sought to compel arbitration in New York City concerning damages to goods shipped by the respondent from New York to Barcelona, Spain. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties which contained two conflicting arbitration clauses: one in Part I mandating arbitration in London, and another in Part II requiring arbitration in New York. The court, presided over by District Judge Motley, interpreted the contract, specifically a preamble stating that Part I provisions prevail over Part II in case of conflict, and also considered that the London clause was in the "typewritten" portion of the agreement, which typically holds precedence. Citing federal contract law and similar maritime contract cases, the court concluded that the London arbitration clause controls the location of arbitration. Consequently, the petition to compel arbitration in New York was denied, although no order was issued to compel arbitration in London as the respondent did not file a cross-petition.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActChoice of ForumMaritime LawConflicting ClausesContractual PrecedenceLondon ArbitrationNew York ArbitrationJudicial Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Priest v. General Electric Co.

The International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America-AFL-CIO, Local 320, sought to compel General Electric Company to arbitrate an employee's discharge as a security risk. General Electric moved to dismiss, challenging the court's jurisdiction and the applicability of arbitration acts. The court considered whether the Federal Arbitration Act and the Labor Management Relations Act mandated arbitration for collective bargaining agreements. Ultimately, the court found that the specific collective bargaining agreement did not provide for arbitration of employee discharge grievances, absent claims of union discrimination. Consequently, the court denied the union's application to compel arbitration and granted General Electric's motion to dismiss the proceeding due to the lack of an arbitrable question.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeJurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActArbitrabilityGrievance ProcedureContract Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Telsa Z.

The respondent, mother of two daughters, appealed a Family Court decision that denied her visitation and continued the children's placement with the petitioner. The children were placed in petitioner's care due to the father's sexual abuse of the older child and the mother's subsequent finding of neglect for failing to protect them. The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to make reasonable reunification efforts by denying visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the denial of visitation was based on compelling reasons, specifically the older child's severe mental health issues and recommendations from her social worker and psychiatrist. The court also found that the petitioner had made reasonable efforts toward reunification, which the respondent largely failed to engage with.

Child NeglectParental Rights TerminationChild VisitationFamily ReunificationChild Abuse AllegationsMental Health of ChildPermanency HearingAppellate ReviewFailure to ProtectReasonable Efforts
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2004

Laif X Sprl v. Axtel, S.A. De C.V.

Laif X Sprl, a Belgian investment company, petitioned the court to compel arbitration against Axtel, Telinor, and Blackstone, and to enjoin a Mexican lawsuit initiated by Telinor. Laif X had purchased Axtel shares, but later felt its control was diluted. While an arbitration proceeding was ongoing in New York, Telinor filed a lawsuit in Mexico challenging the legitimacy of Laif X's share purchase. The court denied the petition to compel arbitration against Axtel and Blackstone as they were already participating. The court also denied compelling Telinor to arbitrate for the same reason. Furthermore, the court denied enjoining Telinor's Mexican lawsuit, citing strong U.S. policy against interfering with foreign sovereign proceedings and noting that the Mexican lawsuit raised colorable issues under Mexican law without materially delaying the ongoing arbitration.

ArbitrationInternational DisputeForeign LawsuitAnti-Suit InjunctionShareholder RightsCorporate ControlMexican Telecommunications CompanyFederal Court JurisdictionComityContract Dispute
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Katsoris v. WME IMG, LLC

Plaintiffs Nick Katsoris and the Loukoumi Make a Difference Foundation, Inc. initiated a copyright infringement lawsuit against WME, IMG, LLC, IMG Productions, LLC, and Viacom Inc. The core of the dispute revolved around a work-for-hire agreement for a TV special featuring Katsoris's character 'Loukoumi,' and allegations that Viacom, in collaboration with IMG, subsequently developed a similar show, All In with Cam Newton, after rejecting Plaintiffs' pitch. The court addressed motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration against WME IMG and IMG Productions, LLC, reasoning that the incorporation of AAA Rules in their agreement delegated arbitrability to the arbitrator. However, the court denied compelling Viacom to arbitrate, finding no direct contractual link or direct benefit exploited by Viacom. Consequently, the court stayed all claims against all defendants, pending the outcome of the arbitration with IMG.

Copyright InfringementArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActWaiver of ArbitrationArbitrabilityEstoppelMotion to CompelStay of LitigationWork-for-Hire ContractAAA Commercial Arbitration Rules
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 5,277 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