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

United Derrickmen & Riggers Assoc. Local Union No. 197 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Local No. 1 Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman

This action was initiated by Local 197 against Local 1, alleging breach of contract based on violations of the Constitutions of the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (BCTC), as well as their respective jurisdictional dispute resolution plans. Local 197 sought partial summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn. Conversely, Local 1 sought summary judgment to dismiss the entire suit, arguing that Local 197 lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that the state law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that Local 197 was an incidental, not intended, beneficiary of the BCTD Constitution and National Plan, and that Local 1's disaffiliation from the BCTC removed its obligations to the New York Plan. Additionally, the court ruled that Local 197's state law claims for tortious interference were preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

Labor LawJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party BeneficiaryNLRA PreemptionUnion AffiliationCollective BargainingAFL-CIO ConstitutionLocal Union Rights
References
26
Case No. ADJ693974 (OAK 0242212)
Regular
Apr 26, 2019

Glory Shreeve vs. Village Shops/ Ethan Allen Carriage House, Superior National Insurance Company, BROADSPIRE, California Insurance Guarantee Association

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, applicant Glory Shreeve sought authorization for medical treatment, which was denied by the defendant's Utilization Review (UR) provider. Applicant argued the UR denials were untimely because requests for additional information were not made by a licensed physician, thus invalidating the delays and granting the Board jurisdiction over medical necessity. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision, finding that the UR provider's requests for additional information did not violate Labor Code Section 4610(e) and that the denials were issued within the extended timeframes permitted by DWC Rule 9792.9.1. Consequently, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the requested medical treatment due to the timely UR denials.

Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationLabor Code section 4610(e)DWC Rule 9792.9.1TimelinessJurisdictionMedical NecessityCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Petition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01255 [158 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2018

Pena v. Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust No. 1

Juan Pena, an injured worker, sued Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust Number 1 and Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) under Labor Law § 240 (1) after sustaining injuries from a fall off an unsecured and wobbling ladder. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Pena partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against SGI. SGI appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Pena's deposition testimony sufficiently established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that SGI failed to raise a triable issue of fact, particularly regarding the provision of adequate safety devices or whether Pena was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Ladder accidentUnsecured ladderFall from heightConstruction site accidentAppellate decisionPrima facie caseTriable issue of factProximate cause
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00602
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Storms v. BOCES Erie No. 1

Claimant Michael Storms sustained work-related injuries, and his employer, Boces Erie No. 1, continued wage payments during his disability. The employer, however, failed to file a timely request for reimbursement of these wages. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially credited the employer for wages paid, but the claimant disputed this entitlement. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified the decision, ruling that the employer had waived its right to reimbursement due to the untimely filing. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that formal requests are necessary and a belated oral reference was insufficient.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementWage PaymentsTimelinessAppellate ReviewWCLJ DecisionBoard ModificationWaiver of RightsDisability BenefitsEmployer Obligation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Communications Workers of America District 1

The lawsuit, filed by Cablevision Systems against Communications Workers of America District 1 (CWA) and individual defendants, sought to address alleged harassment, trespass, stalking, disorderly conduct, and tortious interference with business relations. These claims arose from the defendants' purported disruption of two private Cablevision events in May 2013, a shareholder meeting and an investors' conference. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, ruling that a corporate entity like Cablevision Systems cannot be considered a "person" for the purpose of bringing statutory claims under the Penal Law sections cited (harassment, stalking, disorderly conduct). Furthermore, the court found the claims for common-law trespass and tortious interference insufficient due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions. Consequently, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed entirely.

Labor DisputeUnion HarassmentCorporate EventsTrespassStalkingDisorderly ConductTortious InterferenceMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionPenal Law Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2001

District No. 1-PCD v. Apex Marine Ship Management Co.

This case concerns an appeal to vacate an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance filed by District No. 1-PCD, Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association (AFL-CIO) and Harry A. Kirmon. Kirmon, a discharged engineer, had his grievance dismissed by an arbitrator who found the Union failed to provide Kirmon's written statement to the Company, deeming it a procedural prerequisite. The Supreme Court upheld this dismissal. However, the appellate court reversed, ruling that the arbitrator's decision did not derive its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, which only required the statement be given to the Union. The court concluded the arbitrator exceeded his authority by basing the dismissal on procedural grounds not outlined in the CBA's limitations on his jurisdiction.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingGrievance ProcedureArbitrator JurisdictionFederal Labor LawWrongful DischargeJudicial Review of ArbitrationUnion RightsEmployment TerminationContract Interpretation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. Medford Plaza Associates, Ltd.

Guy Graziano, an employee of Coca-Cola Company, sustained personal injuries after falling in a parking lot and received workers' compensation benefits. His insurance carrier initiated Action No. 2, as assignee, against prior property owners and managing agents after notifying Graziano of the assignment of his claim if he failed to sue within 30 days. Separately, Guy and Maureen Graziano commenced Action No. 1 against prior owners and the current owner, 210 West 29th Street Corp. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Grazianos' action, ruling their claims were assigned to the carrier. On appeal, the order was modified: the dismissal of Action No. 1 was denied, and both actions were consolidated. The appellate court concluded that the carrier had waived its rights as an assignee against 210 West 29th Street Corp. by failing to pursue a claim against them.

Workers' Compensation LawAssignment of ClaimsPersonal InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsConsolidation of ActionsAppellate ReviewInsurance SubrogationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Robles v. Saunders Realty Mossgood Theatre Corp.

Claimant, totally disabled from an industrial accident in 1973, was awarded double compensation due to being a minor employed in violation of the Labor Law, paid by the employer. In 1983, he received supplemental benefits from the employer's insurance carrier. The case was reopened to determine if the employer was also liable for supplemental benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (9) (a). A WCLJ initially ruled against the claimant, but after further record development, another WCLJ ruled in favor of the claimant. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this, clarifying that the employer, while liable, could seek reimbursement from the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The core issue on appeal was the interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a (1) and § 25-a (9) (a), with the court affirming the Board's rational interpretation that supplemental benefits fall under 'compensation' and the employer is entitled to reimbursement from the Special Fund despite the perceived anomaly.

Workers' CompensationDouble CompensationMinor EmployeeLabor Law ViolationSupplemental BenefitsSpecial FundReimbursementEmployer LiabilityInsurance CarrierStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. ADJ7697986
Regular
Oct 28, 2014

KIMBERLY RIVERA vs. VALLEY RADIOLOGY, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision affirms a prior finding that the defendant's utilization review (UR) was untimely. The Board found that even if the defendant received the request for treatment authorization on July 8, 2013, their subsequent UR denial dated July 15, 2013, was still untimely. The critical factor was the defendant's failure to provide initial communication of the denial via telephone, facsimile, or electronic mail, as required by Labor Code section 4610 and Administrative Director Rule 9792.9.1. Consequently, independent medical review was not appropriate, and the applicant's need for further medical treatment was upheld.

Utilization ReviewTimelinessLabor Code Section 4610Independent Medical ReviewRequest for AuthorizationPrimary Treating PhysicianFindings and AwardReconsiderationWCJIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonilla v. State

Claimant, injured while sandblasting a bridge beam, appealed an order from the Court of Claims regarding his Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) claims. The Court of Claims had denied the claimant's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss that claim, concluding no elevation-related risk. The appellate court modified this order, ruling that the claimant's work did expose him to an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for failing to provide proper safety devices. However, the appellate court found that neither party had made a prima facie showing for summary judgment or dismissal on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. This was due to unresolved factual issues concerning whether the claimant could have affixed his lanyard to a standing object as a proper safety measure, or if the lanyard itself failed to provide proper protection, thereby leaving the question of proximate cause open.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Elevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentProximate CauseWorker SafetyAppellate ReviewBridge ConstructionSafety EquipmentAbsolute Liability
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 10,249 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