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

Thomas v. Flavin

The plaintiff, a union member who worked during a strike, sued the defendant, president of Local 1170, Communications Workers of America, for libel. The suit stemmed from a flyer circulated by the defendant that characterized the plaintiff as a "scab" and included a definition attributed to Jack London. Special Term granted partial summary judgment to the defendant, ruling the term "scab" was not libelous as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed, citing federal pre-emption of state libel actions in labor disputes, as established in Linn v Plant Guard Workers and Letter Carriers v Austin. The court held that the use of "scab" and its definition, while insulting, is protected under federal labor law as figurative speech common in such disputes. The court also noted a qualified privilege for communications among union members. However, the issue of other potentially defamatory statements being made with actual malice was remanded for a triable issue of fact.

LibelDefamationLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentFreedom of SpeechNLRA Section 7Scab EpithetQualified Privilege
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Micamold Radio Corp. v. Beedie

This case addresses a plaintiff's request for an injunction in a labor dispute. The court examined the retroactive application and constitutionality of Chapter 477 of the Laws of 1935, which amended the Civil Practice Act by adding section 876-a, outlining specific conditions for issuing injunctions in such disputes. The new law imposes rigorous requirements, including findings of unlawful acts, irreparable injury, and a lack of adequate public protection. After reviewing various legal precedents on statutory retroactivity, the court determined that the 1935 statute affects substantive rights, not merely procedural forms. Consequently, the court concluded that the law cannot be applied retroactively to the plaintiff's pre-existing cause of action, thus ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

injunctionlabor disputestatutory interpretationretroactivityCivil Practice ActSection 876-aequitable reliefsubstantive lawprocedural lawworker rights
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McSpedon v. Profile Electric, Inc.

The petitioner, Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 29, 1987. The order had denied the union's motion to stay arbitration and granted Profile Electric, Inc.'s cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose under a collective bargaining agreement where Profile Electric alleged the union failed to provide sufficient qualified labor, hindering a city contract. The Supreme Court, and subsequently the appellate court, determined that given a broad arbitration clause, the dispute fell within the contract's ambit, emphasizing the state's policy favoring arbitration. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that the merits of the claim and issues of contract termination were matters for the arbitrators.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeStay ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationUnion ObligationsEmployer-Union RelationsQueens County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Fitzgerald & General Electric Co.

This case involves a petition to compel arbitration stemming from a dispute where the respondent opted to subcontract janitorial services instead of using its own employees, a decision challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the dispute fell under an arbitration clause in their collective bargaining agreement, specifically citing the 'Union Recognition' article. However, the court found that the dispute did not involve the interpretation or application of any agreement provision, noting that the subcontracting issue had been explicitly rejected during agreement negotiations. The court also clarified that Civil Practice Act section 1448-a, while precluding inquiry into the merits of a dispute, does not divest the court of its role to determine the scope of an arbitration agreement. Furthermore, the agreement itself stipulated that arbitration could only proceed after a court determined the arbitrability of issues, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingManagement PrerogativeArbitrabilityScope of Arbitration ClauseContract InterpretationUnion RecognitionCourt's Role in ArbitrationLabor Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between George Rattray & Co. & Trenz

Petitioner, George Battray & Company, Inc., sought to stay arbitration demanded by the respondent union following the sale of its assets by Hardwick, Hindle, Inc. (its parent company) to Instruments for Industry, Inc. and the subsequent termination of all employees. The union raised nine issues for arbitration, later reducing them to six. The court analyzed whether these disputes were arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, which required disputes to arise under the agreement and concern its interpretation. The court found that the union failed to present sufficient evidentiary facts to establish an arbitrable dispute regarding the employer's good faith in terminating business, plant relocation, lockout, or the obligation for the purchaser to assume the collective bargaining agreement. However, the court determined that an arbitrable dispute existed concerning the 'floating' holiday pay, as the right to this pay accrued on the first day of the year. The stay of arbitration was granted for all issues except the 'floating' holiday pay.

arbitration staycollective bargaining agreementemployee terminationasset saleunion disputegood faith business terminationarbitrabilityfloating holiday paysuccessor clause interpretationlabor law
References
35
Case No. ADJ11991353
Regular
Mar 30, 2020

TEOFILA DICKERSON vs. ALBERTSONS HOLDINGS

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding it moot. While the WCJ erred by not addressing the medical treatment issue at the expedited hearing, a subsequent Findings and Award was issued without challenge. This award determined temporary disability, rendering the prior dispute regarding treatment resolution moot for now. The Board advises filing a new DOR if disputes arise, as the WCJ must address all issues presented.

Petition for RemovalPrimary Treating PhysicianExpedited HearingMedical TreatmentFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)MootLabor Code section 5313Appeals Board en banc
References
1
Case No. ADJ2148650
Regular
Sep 30, 2011

BRET ROSS vs. ALLERGAN, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior decision because the judge failed to make findings on all issues presented. The applicant sought reconsideration of a ruling requiring all medical treatment disputes to go through utilization review (UR), arguing this was unnecessary for chronic conditions. While UR is generally required per Labor Code §4610, the Board found the judge's decision was deficient by not addressing issues like liability for self-procured treatment or treatment outside the MPN. The case was returned to the trial level for a new decision that addresses all disputed issues.

Utilization ReviewPeroneal Nerve BlocksReflex Sympathetic DystrophySelf-Procured TreatmentLabor Code Section 4600Labor Code Section 4610Medical Treatment NecessityChief of SecurityPermanent DisabilityPrimary Treating Physician
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cast Optics Corp. v. Textile Workers Union

Cast Optics Corp. sought a preliminary injunction against the Textile Workers Union of America (TWUA), the American Arbitration Association, and arbitrator Benjamin Wolfe to prevent a decision in a labor dispute. The dispute arose after the TWUA engaged in a job action and subsequent strike, leading the company to cease recognizing the union. The company argued the dispute was not arbitrable, citing reasons such as the union's alleged material breach of the no-strike clause, NLRB primary jurisdiction, waiver due to late filing, laches, and jurisdictional issues under the U.S. Arbitration Act. The District Court denied the company's motion, concluding that its arguments lacked merit and that issues concerning contract repudiation and procedural arbitrability were for the arbitrator to decide.

Labor DisputeArbitrationPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseRepudiation of ContractNLRB JurisdictionProcedural ArbitrabilityLachesUnited States Arbitration Act
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Seneca Family of Agencies

Petitioner National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. sought to compel the Seneca Family of Agencies to arbitrate a dispute and to prevent Seneca from pursuing a state court action in California. The core dispute involves collateral obligations under a payment agreement linked to California Workers’ Compensation/Employers’ Liability Insurance policies. The court determined that for policies issued after July 1, 2012, California Insurance Code § 11658.5 reverse-preempts the Federal Arbitration Act due to the petitioner's non-compliance with disclosure requirements, thus denying arbitration for these claims. However, for policies issued before July 1, 2012, the court granted the petition to compel arbitration and issued a preliminary injunction against the California state court action. The court also upheld the enforceability of the New York litigation forum selection clause.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActMcCarran-Ferguson ActWorkers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance LawCalifornia Insurance CodeNew York JurisdictionForum Selection ClausePreemptionContract Dispute
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 10,861 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