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

Cusumano v. Schlessinger

The plaintiff, an operator employed by Rodin, was discharged on October 2, 1914, after agents of the International Garment Association informed Rodin that the plaintiff was not a union member, violating an agreement between Rodin's association and the defendant. The plaintiff, claiming wrongful discharge and subsequent inability to find work, was awarded $500 in the lower court. However, the defendant appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Rodin had the right to discharge an employee hired for an indefinite term with or without cause. The court also determined that the defendant's truthful statements did not constitute an actionable offense, as the responsibility for discharge rested solely with the employer. Furthermore, no evidence suggested the defendant prevented the plaintiff from seeking other employment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Wrongful dischargeLabor disputeUnion membershipEmployer-employee relationsTrade associationsContractual agreementsAppellate reviewDismissal with costsUnemploymentRight to discharge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2014

In re Haemmerle

The debtor, Thomas Haemmerle, moved to hold Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in civil contempt for violating his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge injunction. Haemmerle's personal liability on a mortgage loan was discharged in 2006, despite Wells Fargo not being initially scheduled as a creditor. After the loan defaulted in 2011, Wells Fargo pursued collection efforts. Despite being notified of the discharge in 2013, Wells Fargo continued to make numerous phone calls and send letters asserting Haemmerle's personal liability. The court ruled that Haemmerle's personal liability was discharged by operation of law and that Wells Fargo knowingly and willfully violated the discharge injunction, awarding attorneys' fees and $69,500 in punitive damages.

Bankruptcy LawDischarge InjunctionCivil ContemptCreditor NotificationNo-Asset BankruptcyPersonal LiabilityIn Rem RightsPunitive DamagesAttorneys' FeesEmotional Distress Claims
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper Square Hotel, LLC v. Assured Source National, LLC

Petitioner Cooper Square Hotel, LLC sought to discharge a mechanic's lien filed by respondent Assured Source National, LLC against its property. The petitioner argued that the lien should be discharged due to waivers of mechanic's liens executed by the respondent and Angel Construction Group, LLC, and because the respondent, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), is not entitled to assert a mechanic's lien under Lien Law § 3. The court acknowledged that factual issues regarding the waivers and payments would warrant discovery. However, the court ultimately determined that the respondent, as a PEO, failed to overcome the presumption that it did not provide labor, citing *Tri-State Empl. Servs. v Mountbatten Sur. Co.* as precedent. Consequently, the court granted the petition and ordered the discharge of the mechanic's lien.

Mechanic's LienProfessional Employer OrganizationPEOLabor LawLien LawWaiver of LienConstruction ManagementPayroll FinancingCo-employerNew York State Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Cargill, Inc.

This action for retaliatory discharge involves a plaintiff who sustained a neck injury while working for the defendant. After filing a workers' compensation claim, which was settled, the plaintiff was released to work with a ten-pound lifting restriction. Upon attempting to return, he was informed no work was available. The plaintiff then filed a complaint for retaliatory discharge, alleging the defendant maintained a discriminatory 'light duty' policy. A jury verdict favored the plaintiff, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages. However, the appellate court found insufficient material evidence to support the claim of retaliatory discharge, particularly regarding the defendant's alleged light duty policy for permanently disabled workers or discriminatory application based on workers' compensation claims. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and dismissed the action.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ReversalMaterial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityLifting RestrictionsLight Duty PolicyDiscriminatory Employment PracticesBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc.

Johnny A. Johnson, Jr. appealed the trial court's directed verdict in favor of St. Francis Hospital, Inc. in a retaliatory discharge case. Johnson claimed he was terminated for filing workers' compensation claims after sustaining two back injuries. The hospital asserted he was discharged for being unavailable for work due to lifting restrictions and his refusal to accept a leave of absence according to hospital policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no causal link between Johnson's workers' compensation claims and his termination. The court concluded that Johnson was discharged because he chose not to apply for a leave of absence, rendering him unavailable for his job duties.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimEmployment terminationMedical restrictionsLeave of absence policyEmployee at willCausalityPrima facie caseDirected verdictAppeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Mensch

Henry Mensch, the debtor, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He failed to appear at his Section 524(d) discharge hearing due to a disabling stroke, leading to a legal question regarding the mandatory attendance requirement. The court reviewed relevant statutes and legislative history, as well as prior case law, to determine if a debtor could be excused from personal appearance. It concluded that a debtor with a valid, sufficient excuse, who does not intend to reaffirm any debts and is to be granted a discharge, is not required to attend the Section 524(d) hearing. The court ultimately granted Henry Mensch's discharge.

BankruptcyChapter 7Discharge HearingDebtor AppearanceSection 524(d)Statutory InterpretationLegislative IntentMedical ExcuseReaffirmation of DebtsBankruptcy Code
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spainhouer v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.

Plaintiff was discharged by her employer, Western Electric, after claiming worker's compensation benefits and failing to report for duty. She initiated grievance procedures through her union, Communications Workers of America, as per their contract. Although the local union recommended binding arbitration, the International Union declined to pursue this final step, leading to the waiver of arbitration rights. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Western Electric, alleging the discharge was due to her worker's compensation claim. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that federal law preempted state law in this context and that the union's decision not to pursue arbitration did not grant the plaintiff private rights to litigate a tort claim against her employer.

Wrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentWorker's CompensationLabor Union GrievanceCollective Bargaining AgreementExhaustion of RemediesFederal PreemptionBinding ArbitrationUnion RepresentationTexas Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Carey & Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The case involves cross-appeals from an order of Special Term concerning the arbitration of discharge grievances in Buffalo and furlough grievances in Sharon under a collective bargaining agreement. The Special Term had denied arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances, which the appellate court found to be a misconception of the court's role in arbitration. The appellate court emphasized that only the existence of an agreement to arbitrate and a dispute thereunder should be considered, leaving matters of law and fact to the arbitrators. The court also deemed the question of public policy overriding arbitration rules premature. Regarding the Sharon furlough claims, the Special Term's decision to compel arbitration was affirmed, with the appellate court rejecting claims of Federal preemption. The final order was modified to grant the petitioner's motion to compel arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances and affirmed in all other respects.

ArbitrationCollective BargainingLabor DisputeDischarge GrievancesFurlough GrievancesCross-AppealSpecial Term OrderPublic PolicyFederal PreemptionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanderson v. Bellevue Maternity Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiff, an at-will employee, was removed from her position at Bellevue Maternity Hospital by her supervisor, Susan Fraley, following a co-worker's allegation of harassment. Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against the co-worker for defamation and tortious interference, and against Bellevue and Fraley for defamation and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court dismissed the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, citing qualified privilege, and the wrongful discharge claim against Bellevue, upholding the principle of at-will employment. This appeal affirms the dismissal of the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, concluding that Fraley's statements were protected by qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual malice. The court also noted the abandonment of the wrongful discharge claim on appeal.

DefamationAt-Will EmploymentQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceRespondeat SuperiorWrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHarassment AllegationEmployee Relations
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1996

Sawyer v. Budrow (In Re Budrow)

Mona Y. Sawyer filed an adversary proceeding against Mr. and Mrs. Budrow, seeking to except a $72,000 debt from discharge or to deny their general discharge under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The debtors, appearing pro se, were found to have committed multiple violations. These included intentionally omitting numerous creditors, including the IRS, operating a business and collecting receivables without authorization post-petition, failing to maintain adequate financial records for their businesses and personal affairs, and making false oaths in their bankruptcy petition regarding assets and income. The Court determined that the debtors engaged in a knowing scheme to conceal substantial income and assets through alleged family trusts. Consequently, the Court denied the debtors' general discharge based on multiple grounds under § 727(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7Discharge ObjectionFraudulent ConcealmentFalse OathsDebtor MisconductFailure to Keep RecordsUndisclosed AssetsIRS DebtPro Se Representation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,471 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