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

Patterson v. Cortes

This case involves an appeal concerning the consolidation of a personal injury lawsuit with an arbitration proceeding. The underlying incident was a 1977 automobile accident where Belinda Patterson, an infant, was injured by Engracio Cortes, a co-employee at Queens General Hospital. Patterson and her assignee sought no-fault benefits from Cortes' insurer, State Farm, but were denied due to alleged workers' compensation eligibility, leading to arbitration. Simultaneously, Patterson sued Cortes for personal injuries. The Supreme Court granted a motion to consolidate the action and arbitration, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court found no legal basis for consolidating an action with an arbitration and clarified that an arbitration award would not bind Cortes in the personal injury action since he was not a party to the arbitration.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationArbitrationConsolidationCo-employee DefenseRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAppellate ReviewInsurance Claim
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Laundries Corp. v. Craft

This case involves Consolidated Laundries Corp., the petitioner, and its former employee, Craft, the respondent. Consolidated sought to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement against Craft, which prohibited him from serving former customers or engaging in the laundry business within his former route for one year after termination. Both parties were subject to collective bargaining agreements with the Amalgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Consolidated initiated arbitration, which Craft challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court concluded that Section 301 did not apply because the dispute concerned uniquely personal rights, an individual could not invoke Section 301, and a motion to stay arbitration was not a suit for contract violation under the act. Furthermore, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 was denied as the claim did not directly arise under an act regulating commerce like the National Labor Relations Act. Consequently, the motions to remand the proceedings to the New York Supreme Court were granted due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Labor LawArbitrationRestrictive CovenantEmployment ContractFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemandDistrict Court
References
33
Case No. 303-0203A, 304-0386A
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2004

Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC v. Quart Limited, LLC (In Re Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC)

This case involved consolidated adversary proceedings where Holcomb Healthcare Services, LLC (HHCS), the debtor, sought to establish ownership of intellectual property and recover funds from Dr. Robert R. Holcomb and numerous related entities. Dr. Holcomb, as Chief Scientific Officer and acting Chief Manager of HHCS, allegedly breached his fiduciary duties by attempting to divert intellectual property and misappropriate company funds. The court granted HHCS a declaratory judgment, affirming its rightful ownership of a broad range of patents and patent applications under both the Employment Agreement and the Assignment. Furthermore, the court found Dr. Holcomb breached his duty of loyalty. Monetary judgments were awarded to HHCS totaling over $4 million for improperly allocated expenses and an additional $1.8 million for fraudulent conveyances. The court denied requests for substantive consolidation, corporate veil piercing, exemplary damages, and attorney fees, but granted prejudgment interest to HHCS.

BankruptcyIntellectual PropertyPatentsFraudulent ConveyanceFiduciary DutyDuty of LoyaltyCorporate GovernanceInsolvencyAdversary ProceedingTennessee Law
References
57
Case No. 156 AD3d 1064
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

Claim of Pontillo v. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.

Claimant Robert Pontillo established a claim for pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer due to asbestos exposure while working for Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. After voluntarily retiring, claimant sought wage replacement benefits, asserting he had reattached to the labor market. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed an award of benefits, prompting Consolidated Edison and its claims administrator to appeal. The Appellate Division found that the Board failed to address the employer's argument regarding the claimant's burden to prove a causal link between his disability and his inability to find work. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Workers' CompensationAsbestos ExposurePulmonary DiseaseOccupational DiseaseWage BenefitsLabor Market ReattachmentVoluntary RetirementEarning CapacityCausationBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

Stewart v. Chautauqua County Board of Elections

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Placona v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

A Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. employee (petitioner) was discharged after his home's electric meter was found tampered with. The Utility Workers Union of America, Local 1-2 AFL/CIO filed a grievance on his behalf, which proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator upheld the discharge, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The petitioner sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court, Queens County, vacated the award and remitted for a new hearing. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, denying the application to vacate the arbitrator's award. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing proof that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct or exceeded his power, and the award was not completely irrational, as the arbitrator was within his power to use the presumption of tampering.

Arbitration AwardVacate JudgmentEmployee DischargeMeter TamperingJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtCollective BargainingUnion GrievancePresumption of GuiltRational Basis
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Choto v. Consolidated Lumber Transport, Inc.

The claimant, an owner-operator of a truck and trailer, suffered multiple injuries in April 2006 after falling from a loaded flatbed trailer. He subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, listing Consolidated Lumber Transportation, Inc. as his employer. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that an employee-employer relationship existed. On appeal, the court found insufficient substantial evidence to support the Board's finding, noting that the claimant owned and maintained his equipment, paid his own expenses and insurance, was issued an IRS 1099 form, and had flexibility in choosing loads. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Employee ClassificationIndependent Contractor StatusWorkers' Compensation AppealControl Test FactorsFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsSubstantial Evidence ReviewRemittal OrderTruck Driver InjuryLeased EquipmentSelf-Employment
References
13
Case No. E2016-01075-COA-R3-CV-FILED-NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2016

Richard Michelhaugh v. Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC

This case concerns an appeal by employees Richard Michelhaugh and John Williams against Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC (CNS) over disputed vacation benefits. Plaintiffs alleged CNS unlawfully deprived them of vacation time earned in 2014 by implementing a new policy on December 11, 2014, effective January 1, 2015, which retroactively eliminated their accrued vacation. The Circuit Court for Anderson County initially granted CNS's motion to dismiss, concluding the vacation plan was not a contract and CNS had the right to change policies. However, the Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville reversed this decision, ruling that while the plan itself was not an employment contract, employees could not be divested of compensation (vacation benefits) already earned under the previous policy. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that employers cannot retroactively reduce earned compensation.

Vacation benefits disputeEmployment policy changeMotion to dismiss appealContractual obligationsEmployee compensationRetroactive policy alterationBreach of contract allegationsFiduciary duty claimGood faith and fair dealingAppellate review of dismissal
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware

This negligence action involves plaintiff James Black, a forklift operator, who sustained injuries after falling through a hole in a trailer owned by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware and leased to Freeman Decorating Company. Consolidated moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. The court first addressed Black's argument for vicarious liability under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, which was rejected because the claim against Freeman was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, thus leaving nothing to impute. The court then examined Black's direct negligence claims against Consolidated, including constructive notice of the hole, negligent inspection, and inadequate lighting in the trailer. The court found Black's evidence insufficient to establish constructive notice, dismissed the negligent inspection claim due to lack of substantiation, and rejected the inadequate lighting claim as not being a substantial cause of the injuries given the forklift's headlights. Consequently, Consolidated's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Negligence actionSummary judgmentTrailer defectHole in floorWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Constructive noticeNegligent inspectionInadequate lightingVicarious liability
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 9,831 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