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
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Jadwick

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s determination that claimant, an overnight childcare worker, was not discharged from his employment for disqualifying misconduct. The employer submitted evidence that claimant had not worked overtime that he had put on his time sheets. Claimant has consistently maintained that he worked the times in question, however, and his supervisor signed off on the time sheets in the first instance. Moreover, a coworker confirmed claimant’s account of how workers were found to work overtime and testified that claimant had related details to him about working overtime on the relevant units. Inasmuch as the Board was free to credit this evidence that claimant did not falsify his time sheets, we affirm.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployee MisconductOvertime DisputesTime Sheet FalsificationSubstantial EvidenceCredibility AssessmentWorkplace PolicyAppeal Board DecisionDecision AffirmedChildcare Industry
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New York Times Co.

This case involves The New York Times Co. (Times) seeking a permanent injunction against the New York Newspaper Printing Pressmen’s Union No. 2 (Union) and to hold the Union in contempt of court. The dispute stems from a 1995 Consent Decree, part of an EEOC suit, aimed at increasing minority and female representation among Junior Pressmen. The Times alleged a work slowdown by the Union on August 19, 1998, in response to the Times notifying the EEOC of a proposed advancement of Juniors, an action the Times considered a good faith effort to comply with the Consent Decree. The Court found the work slowdown was deliberately caused by the Union and granted the permanent injunction, citing irreparable harm to the Times due to the perishable nature of its product and loss of goodwill. However, the Court denied the motion to hold the Union in contempt for an alleged September 1, 1998, slowdown, finding the evidence of non-compliance not clear and convincing and the connection to the Consent Decree too weak.

Labor DisputePermanent InjunctionWork SlowdownContempt of CourtConsent DecreeEEOC EnforcementTitle VIICollective BargainingNewspaper IndustryUnion Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Augustine

This case involves an appeal by the Industrial Commissioner from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that the claimant, a full-time student at the University of Buffalo working as a janitor, was entitled to unemployment insurance credit. The claimant attended university from approximately 9:30 A.M. to 2:20 P.M. daily, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree to qualify for law school, and worked as a janitor from 4:30 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. five days a week. The central question was whether his janitorial work fell under the "Day student" exception in Labor Law § 511(9), which excludes certain part-time student employment from the definition of "employment" for unemployment insurance purposes. Citing precedents like *Matter of Renee (Gorsi)* and *Matter of Moslcowitz (Gorsi)*, the court concluded that the claimant's work fit the statutory exception, viewing it as a temporary job subordinate to his education rather than a permanent livelihood. Consequently, the court unanimously reversed the Appeal Board's decision and reinstated the Industrial Commissioner's initial determination.

Unemployment InsuranceStudent EmploymentLabor Law ExceptionPart-time WorkAppeal BoardJudicial ReviewEducational PursuitTemporary EmploymentStatutory InterpretationJanitor
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Findling v. Community General Hospital

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in July 1995 and subsequently experienced intermittent lost time from work. In April 1998, claimant was awarded eight weeks of intermittent lost time, but sought review from the Workers’ Compensation Board, submitting a spreadsheet that indicated 13 weeks of lost time. The Board declined to consider the merits of her application, categorizing the spreadsheet as new evidence and citing claimant's failure to explain its prior non-submission. On appeal, the Court found that the Board erred in deeming the spreadsheet new evidence, a point the employer conceded. This error precluded the Board from fulfilling its fact-finding role and deprived the claimant of a review on the merits. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the case remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

Workers' CompensationIntermittent Lost TimeEvidence AdmissibilityBoard ReviewRemittalProcedural ErrorAppellate Court DecisionDisability BenefitsFact-Finding RoleClaimant Rights
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2014

Matter of Galuski v. New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs

Claimant suffered a work-related back injury and utilized leave credits for her absence, during which she received full wages. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded benefits and directed the employer's insurance carrier to reimburse the employer for wages paid. While the carrier timely reimbursed the employer, the employer delayed restoring the claimant's accrued leave credits for nearly a year. The claimant sought to impose a penalty on the employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) for this delay. Both the WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board declined the penalty. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the cited Workers’ Compensation Law provision for penalties applies when there is a failure to make compensation payments according to the award's terms, and the initial award did not include an obligation for the employer to timely restore leave time to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationLeave CreditsPenaltyReimbursementTimelinessBack InjuryWCLJ DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2002

Claim of Thomas v. City of Albany School District

Claimant sustained a back injury on November 6, 1998, while lifting a bread pan at work and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier contended that any disability after November 18, 1998, was not work-related. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found no compensable lost time, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reopened the case. Following further hearings, a WCLJ later found the claimant totally disabled, crediting the claimant's physician and chiropractor. However, the Board reversed this determination, choosing to credit the carrier's expert who opined no causally related disability, noting inconsistencies in the claimant's physician's testimony regarding the location of pain and reliance on subjective complaints. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to resolve conflicts in medical evidence and credit expert opinions.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityMedical Evidence ConflictSubjective Complaints of PainBoard DeterminationAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyBack InjuryWork-Related AccidentAffirmed Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huether v. New York Times Building, LLC

Plaintiff John Huether, a carpenter, sustained injuries while unloading drywall from a truck during the construction of the New York Times Building. The accident occurred when an unsecured steel plate, used to bridge an 8-10 inch gap between the truck and loading dock, shifted, causing a dolly loaded with drywall to tip and crush his right leg. Plaintiffs sued building owners, general contractors, and the truck operator, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The court granted dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim as not gravity-related. For Labor Law § 241(6), the court found 12 NYCRR 23-1.22 (b)(3) applicable and violated, granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment, while other cited Industrial Code provisions were deemed inapplicable. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were dismissed against the building owners (NYT) due to lack of control, but were allowed to proceed against the general contractors (Turner and Amec) due to disputed facts regarding their control over the work methods and notice of unsafe conditions.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentLoading Dock SafetyUnsecured Bridging PlateIndustrial Code ViolationsGeneral Contractor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkPremises Condition
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 10,940 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