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

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McNaughton v. Broach

Sixteen members of Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, initiated a lawsuit against defendant Broach and 34 other officers, alleging a conspiracy to arbitrarily control the union, deprive members of autonomy, and manage affairs for personal gain. The plaintiffs sought various injunctive reliefs, including restoring member rights and directing an accounting of funds. The primary issue on appeal concerned the validity of service by publication on defendant Broach, a non-resident, who moved to vacate the service, arguing its impropriety due to his non-residency and lack of property within New York State, a prerequisite for such service without personal jurisdiction. The Special Term initially denied Broach's motion, reasoning that the cause of action arose in New York, related to local property rights, and the sought relief could be enforced locally. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that while the cause of action might have originated in New York, substituted service on a non-resident defendant requires proof of property within the state over which the court can assume in rem jurisdiction, as personal jurisdiction (in personam) was absent. The court emphasized that without such property or in personam jurisdiction, any judgment directing specific actions or an accounting against the non-resident Broach would be unenforceable, therefore rendering the order for service by publication void.

Service by PublicationJurisdiction In RemNon-Resident DefendantUnion GovernanceLabor Union DisputeAppellate ProcedureMotion to VacateProperty RightsEnforceability of JudgmentConspiracy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stolarski v. Family Services of Westchester, Inc.

Plaintiff Arlene Stolarski appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed her cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering in a wrongful death action. The decedent, after an apparent suicide attempt and subsequent consultations with Family Services of Westchester, Inc., died by suicide shortly after. Plaintiff alleged negligence by Family Services in treating the decedent's depression, causing conscious pain and suffering between October 19, 2005, and October 28, 2005. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that such damages couldn't be recovered in a wrongful death action and that the depression was pre-existing. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a cause of action for personal injuries, including conscious pain and suffering due to professional malpractice, survives the decedent's death and may be recovered by her estate, and that pre-existing conditions do not preclude proving exacerbation by alleged negligent treatment.

Wrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingProfessional MalpracticeNegligenceSuicideMental Health TreatmentSurvival StatuteAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissPre-existing Condition
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1997

Jemzura v. Public Service Commission

The court addressed plaintiff Jemzura's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG), the Public Service Commission (PSC), and its employees. Jemzura alleged that the defendants denied him electrical service, violating his due process and equal protection rights, stemming from a twenty-year dispute over electrical line extensions. The court converted defendants' motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment. It ruled that PSC and its employees are immune under the Eleventh Amendment and not "persons" under § 1983, and NYSEG did not act "under color of law." Furthermore, the court found the claim barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to prior litigations concerning NYSEG's authority. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the complaint with prejudice, and denied their motions for sanctions and injunctive relief.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 claimDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelState Action DoctrineEleventh Amendment ImmunityPublic Utility RegulationVexatious Litigation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2005

Hageman v. B & G Building Services, LLC

The plaintiff, injured during demolition work at a Home Depot store, initially sued Home Depot, and later commenced an action against B & G Building Services, LLC (Building) for personal injuries. Building cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was the plaintiff's employer and that the action was barred by Workers' Compensation Law due to an alter ego or joint venturer relationship with the plaintiff's direct employers, the Electrical corporations. The Supreme Court granted Building's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was reversed; the appellate court determined that Building failed to provide sufficient proof to establish an alter ego or joint venturer relationship, which would legally prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with the personal injury action under the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineJoint VentureEmployer LiabilityDemolition AccidentAppellate ReviewNassau CountyConstruction Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 1995

U.N.F. Services Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America

The plaintiff, U.N.F. Services, Inc., a New York corporation, initiated an action against Mountain States Mutual and Casualty Co., a New Mexico corporation that provided its workers' compensation insurance. The suit sought damages for breach of contract and negligence. Mountain States appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Mountain States' actions, including mailing policies and collecting premiums in New York, constituted sufficient 'doing business' and 'minimum contacts' for personal jurisdiction. The court also rejected arguments regarding an exception in the Insurance Law and found no merit to the claim of an inconvenient forum.

JurisdictionBreach of ContractNegligencePersonal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensInsurance LawMinimum ContactsAppellate ReviewCorporate LawWorkers' Compensation Insurance
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NYSA-ILA Medical & Clinical Services Fund Ex Rel. Capo v. Catucci

The NYSA-ILA Medical & Clinical Services Fund, an employee medical services fund, sued Sabato Catucci and his three sons for allegedly withholding payments from Saleo Trucking Corporation to the fund. This action followed a prior judgment against the corporation for delinquent contributions. The plaintiff sought to hold the defendants personally liable under alter ego, breach of ERISA fiduciary duty, and embezzlement theories. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the breach of ERISA fiduciary duty claim against Sabato Catucci, finding him to be a fiduciary who misused plan assets. However, claims against his sons were dismissed due to lack of sufficient control over the corporation. The alter ego claim against Sabato Catucci will proceed to trial, and the embezzlement claim was dismissed for not supporting a private civil cause of action.

ERISA Fiduciary DutyAlter Ego LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentEmployee Benefit PlanMultiemployer FundSelf-DealingCorporate ControlLabor Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1990

Claim of Weingarten v. XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc.

This case addresses whether a claimant, a shareholder and participating limousine driver for XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc., qualifies as an employee eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The corporation, which provides dispatch services, requires drivers to purchase shares and own their limousines, covering personal expenses. While drivers have flexible hours, they are obligated to accept "voucher fares" assigned by the corporation, with penalties for refusal, and the corporation manages these payments. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found no employer-employee relationship, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding an employer-employee relationship existed due to the corporation's significant control over the voucher fare system and the claimant's dependence on the corporation for business. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding sufficient evidence of control to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship.

employer-employee relationshipworkers' compensationlimousine driverindependent contractorcontrol testshareholderdispatch servicesvoucher faresadministrative appealNew York
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 9,570 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