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

Members for a Democratic Union v. Local 1101, Communications Workers

Plaintiffs, Members for a Democratic Union (MDU) and individual members, sought mandatory injunctive relief to compel defendants, Local 1101, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its officers, to publish an advertisement promoting a 'Defense Fund' in the union's newspaper, 'The Generator'. They argued this right under section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The defendants maintained a policy of not accepting paid advertisements, only publishing free notices for union member benefits, and argued this policy was reasonable and consistently applied. The court distinguished the case from previous rulings, noting that 'The Generator' had not 'opened the forum' to commercial speech or taken a stance on the Defense Fund issue. The court also noted that plaintiffs had other viable communication channels. Ultimately, the court found the defendants' policy to be reasonable and granted their motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motion and dismissing the action.

Labor LawUnion DemocracyFreedom of SpeechLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentUnion NewspaperAdvertising PolicyInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentInternal Union Affairs
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crews v. County of Nassau

Raheem Crews and his son sued the County of Nassau and its officials for various torts, including false arrest and malicious prosecution, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The defendants moved to implead Crews' former counsel, Arshad Majid and his law firm, alleging negligence and seeking contribution. The court denied the motion, ruling that a criminal defense attorney owes no duty of care to prosecutors, thus precluding a negligence claim. Additionally, the court found that contribution claims are not available for Section 1983 actions. For the pendent state law claims, the court concluded that even if a contribution claim could theoretically exist, impleading Majid would cause undue delay, confuse the issues, and prejudice the plaintiffs.

Impleader MotionNegligence ClaimContribution ClaimSection 1983State Law Tort ClaimsMalicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestUnlawful ImprisonmentAbuse of ProcessLegal Malpractice
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. J. Crew Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Soto, an employee of a commercial cleaning company, suffered injuries after falling from a ladder while dusting a display shelf at a J. Crew store. He sued J. Crew and The Mercer I L.L.C. under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging a failure to provide adequate safety devices. The lower courts granted summary judgment to the defendants, classifying Soto's task as routine maintenance not covered by the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed, establishing criteria to differentiate routine cleaning from covered activities and concluding that dusting a display shelf was not within the statute's protective scope. The decision clarifies the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) regarding elevation-related risks in commercial cleaning.

Labor LawElevation RiskRoutine MaintenanceCommercial CleaningPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationLadder FallWorkplace Safety
References
12
Case No. ADJ8222803
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

Terry Lasko vs. Entertainment Partners, AIG, Cast & Crew, Zurich North America, Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision regarding contribution between two employers, Entertainment Partners and Cast & Crew. The WCAB modified the award, ordering Cast & Crew to contribute to future medical care for the applicant's left shoulder, finding substantial evidence of industrial injury. However, the WCAB affirmed the arbitrator's denial of Cast & Crew's contribution for temporary disability and future medical care for GERD, constipation, and high blood pressure due to insufficient evidence of industrial causation for those conditions. One commissioner dissented, arguing for Cast & Crew's contribution to future medical care for the internal conditions.

Cumulative TraumaContribution PetitionLabor Code Section 5500.5Compromise and ReleaseFuture Medical CareApportionmentPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceNon-Industrial InjuryIndustrial Injury
References
10
Case No. ADJ8222803
Regular
Jul 30, 2018

TERRY LASKO vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS; AIG, Cast & Crew Entertainment Services

This case involves a petition for contribution where Entertainment Partners seeks reimbursement from Cast & Crew for benefits paid to an applicant. The original arbitrator awarded Entertainment Partners $95,565.17 but denied Cast & Crew liability for future medical care. Entertainment Partners contends the arbitrator erred by arbitrarily allocating $7,500 to an unpled specific injury and by denying them contribution for temporary disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and remanded the case for further proceedings due to the arbitrator exceeding his authority by making an unsubstantiated allocation.

Labor Code Section 5500.5ContributionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseCumulative TraumaFuture Medical CareArbitrator AuthorityTemporary DisabilitySpecific Injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ6746759; ADJ6746764
Regular
Oct 17, 2014

JEANNE VAN PHUE vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PA, administered by CNA CLAIMSPLUS, CAST & CREW, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns defendant Cast & Crew's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's award finding their insured's employee's hypertension, psychiatric injury, knee injury, and back injury, among other issues, to be related to a specific October 13, 2013 injury. The Board granted reconsideration to further review the case. After review, the Board has decided to vacate the order granting reconsideration and deny Cast & Crew's petition, adopting the arbitrator's original findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardHypertensionPsychiatric InjuryKnee ReplacementPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityMedical TreatmentSpecific Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ201545
Regular
Jun 30, 2015

GEORGE ZAMORA vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, CNA CLAIMS PLUS, CAST AND CREW ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration by Defendant Cast & Crew concerning a workers' compensation award. The petitioner argued the Statute of Limitations barred contribution claims and sought to avoid future liability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. The WCJ found that contribution claims were not time-barred, citing case law that distinguishes enforcing an existing award from determining initial apportionment. Therefore, Cast & Crew's petition was denied as they were aware of their ongoing liability.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDGEORGE ZAMORAENTERTAINMENT PARTNERSAMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANYCNA CLAIMS PLUSCAST AND CREW ENTERTAINMENTZURICH NORTH AMERICAPetition for ReconsiderationWCJCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10848
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01051
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2023

Lindsay v. CG Maiden Member, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting plaintiff Nathaniel Lindsay partial summary judgment on his common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims against Five Star Carting, L.L.C. Lindsay testified he fell from an unsecured and wet A-frame ladder while trying to close a leaking valve, establishing an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found defendant failed to provide proper protection and that the defendant's workers created the dangerous condition leading to the accident for the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Despite defendant's arguments about inconsistent statements regarding the injury, this evidence did not controvert the plaintiff's testimony about the fall. The decision confirmed plaintiff's entitlement to partial summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site InjuryWorkplace SafetyFall AccidentAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewittes & Sons v. United Furniture Workers of America

Plaintiffs, members of a copartnership, initiated an action against defendant-unions seeking damages for the alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement's "no strike" clause. The defendants moved for a stay of the trial pending arbitration, citing the United States Arbitration Act. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing that the arbitration clause did not cover damage claims and that Section 1 of the Arbitration Act, which excludes certain employment contracts, should apply to the entire Act, thereby precluding a stay. The court found that the broad language of the arbitration clause encompassed claims for damages arising from a breach of the no-strike pledge. Furthermore, the court clarified that while the exception in Section 1 of the Arbitration Act applies to the entire Act, a collective bargaining agreement is not considered a "contract of employment" in the context of this exception. Consequently, the motion for a stay was granted, promoting arbitration as a means for peaceful labor dispute resolution.

Labor-Management Relations ActUnited States Arbitration ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseNo-Strike ClauseStay of ProceedingsContract of EmploymentInterstate CommerceJudicial InterpretationFederal Court
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reliance Insurance v. Certain Member Companies

Plaintiffs Reliance Insurance Company and New York Marine & General Insurance Company commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment to void a reinsurance binder ab initio. Defendants, Certain Member Companies of the Institute of London Underwriters, issued this binder covering plywood cargo. A cargo fire on the vessel SAMICK NORDIC destroyed the plywood, leading to a dispute over a $2,043,740.24 reinsurance coverage. Plaintiffs argued they were misled by brokers into believing the reassured was retaining a portion of the risk, a customary practice, whereas the London Underwriters had ceded 100% of the FPA risk. The court found that plaintiffs reasonably believed in retention and were indeed misled by the brokers' actions and omissions, constituting a violation of the duty of uberrimae fidei, or utmost good faith. Consequently, the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the reinsurance binder void ab initio and dismissing the defendants' counterclaim.

Reinsurance disputeMarine insuranceDeclaratory judgmentUberrimae fideiBroker misleadingDuty to discloseFPA riskCargo insuranceContract void ab initioGood faith in insurance
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 691 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