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

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. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Enron Corp.

Enterprise Products Operating L.P. filed a motion for resolution of dispute against Enron Gas Liquids, Inc. (EGLI) regarding lien claims for pre-petition services. Enterprise asserted a total lien claim of $888,059.09 under Texas law for various services including storage, trucking, fractionation, and product treatment of natural gas liquids. EGLI acknowledged a portion of the lien related to trucking and storage but disputed the claim for fractionation and product treatment services. The court examined whether Enterprise qualified as a 'mechanic, artisan, or materialman' under Article XVI, § 37 of the Texas Constitution. The court ultimately denied the fractionation and product treatment lien, finding that Enterprise's complex engineering and technical operations did not fit these traditional definitions. Additionally, the court denied Enterprise's request for post-petition attorneys' fees, citing the absence of a contractual agreement for such fees.

Bankruptcy LawLien EnforcementTexas Constitutional LawSecured ClaimsAttorneys' FeesCommercial DisputeNatural Gas LiquidsFractionation ServicesWarehouseman's LienDebtor-in-Possession
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Xerox Corp. v. Lantronix, Inc.

Plaintiff Xerox Corporation commenced an action against Defendant Lantronix, Inc., alleging breach of an indemnification clause in their Master Purchase Agreement and seeking a declaratory judgment regarding a separate Texas lawsuit. Defendant filed counterclaims asserting Plaintiff's contractual breaches and seeking litigation costs. Plaintiff moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing Defendant failed to meet prelitigation dispute resolution requirements. Defendant countered by arguing the dispute resolution clause was inapplicable and alternatively moved to amend its counterclaims. The Court ultimately denied Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, ruling that the dispute resolution clause did not apply to counterclaims in an already ongoing action, and granted Defendant's motion to amend its counterclaims.

Breach of ContractIndemnificationDeclaratory JudgmentCounterclaimsMotion to DismissLeave to AmendDispute Resolution ClauseContractual InterpretationFederal Civil ProcedureIntellectual Property Infringement
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palm Bay International, Inc. v. Marchesi Di Barolo S.P.A.

This case concerns post-judgment motions filed by Palm Bay International, Inc. and the Taubs against Marchesi Di Barolo S.P.A., seeking judgment as a matter of law or a new trial following a jury verdict. The plaintiffs challenged findings related to Palm Bay's breach of implied warranty of merchantability, arguing Marchesi's 'cure' defense was legally insufficient. They also contested the jury's finding that Palm Bay breached a dispute resolution provision. Lastly, the Taubs sought dismissal of a counterclaim alleging breach of fiduciary duty for instructing a set-off. The court denied the motions regarding the breach of warranty and the dispute resolution provision, upholding the jury's findings and confirming the validity of Marchesi's cure efforts and the enforceability of the dispute resolution clause. However, the court granted the motion concerning the breach of fiduciary duty, ruling that the Taubs were not acting within the scope of their agency when the set-off occurred, thus dismissing the sixth counterclaim as a matter of law.

post-judgment motionjudgment as a matter of lawnew trialbreach of implied warrantycure defensecontract lawdispute resolutionfiduciary dutyagency agreementset-off
References
60
Case No. ADJ2373559 (OAK 0280633)
Regular
Dec 29, 2008

LYNN JONES vs. INTERNEWS NETWORK, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case to the trial level to allow parties to complete the dispute resolution process regarding medical treatment denials. The Board found that after utilization review denied treatment, the parties failed to follow the required procedures under Labor Code sections 4610 and 4062 to resolve the dispute. Therefore, a new decision is to be made after the proper dispute resolution process is completed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewMedical Treatment DisputeLabor Code Section 4610Labor Code Section 4062Qualified Medical ExaminerGym MembershipPhysical TherapyIndustrial InjuryTreating Physician
References
1
Case No. ADJ9743291
Regular
Nov 06, 2018

CDWARD DE LA ROSA vs. ALL AREA PLUMBING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed applicant Edward De La Rosa's removal petition, finding the WCAB lacks jurisdiction over his claim. De La Rosa failed to timely dispute his claim denial through the mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, as required by his union's agreement. Specifically, he did not request a Qualified Medical Evaluator within the prescribed 30-day period after receiving notice of denial. This failure to follow the ADR procedures, including timely dispute resolution steps, bars the WCAB from adjudicating the merits of his injury claim.

RemovalLabor Code section 5301Petition for RemovalDue ProcessJurisdictionADR ProgramCertified RecordApplication for AdjudicationPetition to DismissQualified Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01801 [236 AD3d 1020]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2025

Matter of Borgia v. SCO Family of Servs.

The case involves a dispute between the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn Workers' Compensation Trust (Trust) and SCO Family of Services (SCO) over an unpaid assessment. SCO, a former member of the Trust, was assessed $3.45 million for the Trust's deficit. After making partial payments, SCO sought to verify the assessment, leading the Trustees to initiate a proceeding to enforce an alternative dispute resolution provision. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding based on the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division reversed, finding a question of fact as to whether SCO's 2014 partial payment renewed the statute of limitations and whether an installment payment plan was agreed upon. The court also rejected SCO's public policy argument against the dispute resolution provision, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Alternative Dispute ResolutionContract EnforcementStatute of LimitationsPartial PaymentWorkers' Compensation TrustGroup Self-InsuranceAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactInstallment PaymentsPublic Policy
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,209 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