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

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Unified Court System v. Court Attorneys Ass'n

The case addresses the arbitrability of a dispute between the Unified Court System (petitioner) and a respondent union. The petitioner had designated three newly hired Supervising Court Attorneys as "managerial/confidential," asserting that this classification falls under the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) as per the Taylor Law and not within the scope of arbitration. Conversely, the respondent union argued that the matter should be arbitrated under the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) recognition clause and general arbitration provisions. The court applied a two-step analysis to assess arbitrability, concluding that there were no statutory or public policy prohibitions preventing arbitration of the "managerial or confidential" designation. It also found a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the CBA's provisions regarding new positions. Consequently, the court denied the petitioner's motion to stay arbitration and granted the respondent's cross-motion, directing the parties to proceed with arbitration.

Public Employment ArbitrationManagerial/Confidential Employee DesignationCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Arbitrability DisputeUnion RepresentationGrievance ProcedureNew York Court System
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Reif & Williams Sportswear, Inc.

This case addresses whether a corporation is bound by an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement ratified by its predecessor partnership. The petitioner, Local 169 of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, initiated arbitration against the respondent, Williams Sportswear Co., Inc., for defaulting on payments to employee funds. The corporation, formed by the same partners who ran the predecessor partnership, continued the same business in the same location and sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was not a party to the agreement. While the Special Term denied the stay, the Appellate Division reversed, absolving the corporation of the obligation. The higher court, however, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the corporation acts as an 'alter ego' of the original promoters and is thus bound by the collective bargaining agreement, emphasizing that a change in corporate form does not negate pre-existing contractual obligations when the underlying business remains unchanged. Therefore, arbitration was deemed enforceable.

Arbitration AgreementCollective Bargaining AgreementCorporate LiabilityAlter Ego DoctrineSuccessor EmployerStay of ArbitrationPartnership DissolutionCorporate FormationContractual ObligationsUnion Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allstate Insurance v. Loester

Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company initiated a declaratory judgment action against its insured, Loester, and Stigliano (the underlying personal injury claimant). Allstate sought to disclaim coverage, alleging Loester breached the policy's cooperation clause by failing to appear for a deposition and being generally uncooperative. The court found Allstate's evidence, including an investigator's affidavit, insufficient to prove willful noncooperation, citing inadequate efforts to locate and secure Loester's assistance. Crucially, the court noted a stipulation allowing Loester's deposition before trial, rendering the disclaimer claim premature. Consequently, Allstate's motion for summary judgment was granted only to the extent of awarding summary judgment to defendant Stigliano, and the entire action was dismissed as premature due to the absence of a presently justiciable controversy.

Insurance DisclaimerCooperation ClauseSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionInsured NoncooperationBurden of Proof (Insurer)Willful ObstructionPremature ActionJusticiable ControversyMotor Vehicle Accident
References
20
Case No. ADJ6974901
Regular
Nov 18, 2011

JOHN SWENNING, JR. vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO; Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the defendant sought discovery of documents related to potential misconduct and impeachment evidence. The applicant had a separate settlement agreement with the Fresno County District Attorney's Office, which included a confidentiality clause and required the expurgation of his personnel file. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's discovery motion, subject to the condition that any personnel file produced must be the expurgated version provided under the settlement agreement. This ruling allows for the requested discovery while respecting the terms of the prior settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSettlement AgreementMutual ReleaseConfidentiality ClauseIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineKneesDistrict Attorney's InvestigatorPetition for Discovery
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quevedo v. City of New York

Plaintiff Raphael A. Quevedo, an employee of Berley Industries, Inc., was injured by a boiler explosion in a building owned by the City of New York. Quevedo sued the City and V and A Oil Burner Services, Inc., alleging negligence. The City subsequently commenced a third-party action for contractual indemnification against Berley Industries, Inc., based on a clause in their maintenance contract. Berley argued the indemnification clause was void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 and that the City's notice to the insurer was untimely. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division both affirmed the enforceability of the clause. This court affirmed, clarifying that General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 only voids clauses indemnifying for *sole* negligence, and since no sole negligence was proven, the clause remained enforceable to the extent it covered joint fault. The court also rejected the untimely notice argument, citing the contract's provision that notice by either party was sufficient.

Indemnification clauseBuilding maintenance contractContractual liabilityGeneral Obligations LawSole negligenceJoint faultInsurance coverageThird-party actionSettlementAppellate review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Doe v. City of New York

Plaintiff, an HIV-positive former Pan Am employee, filed a discrimination complaint against Delta Airlines with the New York City Commission on Human Rights. A conciliation agreement included a confidentiality clause regarding his identity and HIV status. The defendants allegedly issued a press release that, without explicitly naming the plaintiff, contained enough information to identify him and his HIV status, leading to newspaper disclosures. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of constitutional right of privacy, stating it does not extend to matters of public record. The remaining state law claims for breach of contract and violation of New York Public Health Law § 2782(1) were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Privacy RightsHIV ConfidentialityBreach of ContractSection 1983Constitutional LawHuman Rights CommissionMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsConciliation Agreement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2008

Osowski v. AMEC Construction Management, Inc.

This case involves an appeal stemming from a construction accident in New York City where plaintiff Frank Osowski was severely injured. The owner (NYTB) and construction manager (AMEC) were sued by Osowski and later initiated a third-party action against Osowski's employer (DCM) for indemnification and contribution, and a declaratory judgment action against their excess insurer (AIG). A confidential settlement was reached between Osowski, NYTB, and AMEC, partly funded by AIG via a letter of credit. DCM moved to compel disclosure of the settlement terms and subsequently moved to dismiss the third-party action, arguing that AIG's funding negated AMEC/NYTB's 'out-of-pocket' losses, thereby triggering a waiver of subrogation clause. The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the settlement agreements were properly disclosed and that AIG's funding of the settlement effectively nullified its disclaimer of coverage, triggering the waiver of subrogation and preventing AMEC/NYTB from pursuing indemnification against DCM. The court also referred attorney Steven Ahmuty Jr. to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for his conduct.

Construction AccidentWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageWaiver of SubrogationThird-Party ActionDeclaratory JudgmentSettlement AgreementDisclosureConfidentialityIndemnification
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 792 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