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
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. Docket No. 16
Regular Panel Decision

Issac v. City of New York

Steven Isaac, a 53-year-old African American male, brought claims of employment discrimination and retaliation against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, and Deputy Commissioner Kathleen Coughlin. His claims under Title VII, ADEA, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 alleged age discrimination for denial of promotions to three positions and retaliation for filing a prior discrimination complaint. Isaac also claimed retaliation regarding a Staff Analyst title and an incorrect phone number listing. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that Isaac failed to establish a prima facie case for most age discrimination claims and, where he did, could not prove pretext. The retaliation claims also failed due to lack of a causal connection and insufficient evidence of pretext.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADEACivil Rights ActFirst AmendmentSummary JudgmentCausal ConnectionPretext
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Number Workers Co. v. New Dimensions in Education, Inc.

This action for declaratory relief was initiated by The Number Workers Company, Inc. to declare it is not infringing copyrights, interfering with contracts, or engaging in unfair competition, and that the defendant is estopped from asserting such claims. The defendant subsequently filed a similar action in the Eastern District of New York, including Dr. Bernard Kauderer, the plaintiff's president. The plaintiff moved for an injunction against the Eastern District case, while the defendant cross-moved for a stay of this action, arguing proper venue in the Eastern District. The court denied the plaintiff's injunction motion and granted the defendant's motion to stay this action, reasoning that all issues could be resolved in the Eastern District case without inconvenience.

Declaratory ReliefCopyright InfringementUnfair CompetitionTortious InterferenceVenue DisputeInjunction DeniedStay GrantedPriority RuleBalance of ConvenienceEastern District of New York
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case, presided over by District Judge Spatt, addresses post-trial motions concerning attorney's fees and damages following a class action. Initially, plaintiffs sued employer Robert Abbey, Inc. under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN) (settled for $110,000) and both the employer and Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for breach of fair representation. After class decertification, the claims of fourteen plaintiffs against the Union went to a jury, which found the Union liable for breaching its duty of fair representation and awarded compensatory damages to eight of them. The Court denied the Union's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law but vacated the jury's compensatory damage award, instead granting nominal damages of $1 to each of the eight prevailing plaintiffs due to lack of evidentiary support for the monetary award. The Court also determined that plaintiffs' attorneys were entitled to recover attorney's fees for the Union's breach of duty of fair representation, calculating these fees based on reasonable hours and rates, and awarded specific amounts to the law firms Hall & Sloan ($4,775.00) and Davis & Eisenberg ($42,475.00), for a total of $47,250.00. Additionally, the Court awarded $1,177.15 in costs and denied the plaintiffs' application for an award of prejudgment interest.

Attorney's FeesNominal DamagesBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActSettlementJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsLodestar MethodClass Action Decertification
References
36
Case No. 00 Civ. 4763
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Information Systems, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union Number 3

The plaintiffs, CWA-affiliated electrical contractors led by U.S. Information Systems, Inc., filed an antitrust lawsuit against IBEW Local Union Number 3 and affiliated electrical contractors. Plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy to exclude them from the telecommunications installation market, causing higher prices and lost profits, in violation of the Sherman and Donnelly Acts. The defendants moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' economic expert, Dr. Frederick C. Dunbar, under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, arguing his methods and data were unreliable. Magistrate Judge Francis found that while Dr. Dunbar's qualifications and methodology were largely sound, his analysis concerning liability and causation relied on a biased data sample. Consequently, the court partially granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Dr. Dunbar's testimony based on the skewed data sample for liability and causation is inadmissible. However, his testimony not dependent on this biased data, including his damages calculations, remains admissible, and plaintiffs were instructed to submit a revised expert report if they intend to offer such testimony.

AntitrustMonopoly LeveragingExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardReliability of EvidenceStatistical AnalysisData BiasMarket PowerTelecommunications IndustryElectrical Contracting
References
41
Case No. ADJ-4279077 (SDO 0317244)
Regular
Jun 09, 2016

TINA BARONI vs. CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Decision After Removal ordering the striking of three sets of documents from the EAMS record. These documents pertained to San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2016-00006537-CU-IC-CTL and were submitted without objection. The WCAB previously issued a Notice of Intention to Strike these documents, stating they would be removed unless good cause to the contrary was shown. No objections were received from the parties or the identified attorneys.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalStriking DocumentsEAMS recordCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Indemnity CompanyLiquidationSan Diego Superior CourtObjectionGood Cause
References
1
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. CV 96-1098
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1999

Tucker v. Kenney

Plaintiff David C. Tucker initiated two separate actions, later consolidated under Docket Number CV 96-1098, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged constitutional rights violations by his court-appointed attorney, Patricia Kenney, and the Legal Aid Society, claiming Kenney impermissibly waived his right to release under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 180.80. Tucker also sued Police Officers Gross, Colgan, Pannaman, and Kuebler for alleged false statements, warrantless arrest, and unjustified charges. The Legal Aid defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that court-appointed attorneys do not act 'under color of State law' for Section 1983 purposes. The Court granted the Legal Aid defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 1983 claim with prejudice, and also dismissed Tucker's state law claim for legal malpractice against them without prejudice, declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Civil RightsSection 1983Pro Se LitigantCourt-Appointed CounselLegal MalpracticeMotion to DismissColor of State LawSupplemental JurisdictionConsolidation of ActionsCriminal Procedure Law § 180.80
References
28
Case No. ADJ1312021
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

GRICELDA AREVALOS vs. PERSONNEL PLUS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order corrects clerical errors in a prior decision regarding Gricelda Arevalos's case. The errors involved an incorrect case number in the caption and an extra space within the case number later in the document. The Board is correcting these errors to reflect the accurate case number ADJ1312021 without further proceedings. This amendment ensures the official record is accurate.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCLERICAL ERRORSORDER CORRECTINGPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCASE NUMBER CORRECTIONADJ7430358ADJ0302021ADJ1312021SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGSCONTINGENT PROCEEDINGS
References
0
Case No. ADJ3283274 (VNO 0386537) ADJ4545965 (VNO 0386536) ADJ3421140 (VNO 0347301)
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

BARBARA STRAUSS vs. WEST MARINE, INC., CIGA for RELIANCE in liquidation, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY, FIREMAN'S FUND

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denying reconsideration. The error involved the incorrect assignment of ADJ and VNO numbers to the relevant case numbers. The WCAB is correcting this error to accurately reflect the case numbers as ADJ3283274 and VNO 0386537. This correction ensures proper record-keeping for applicant Barbara Strauss and defendants West Marine, Inc., et al.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeClerical ErrorCorrected Case NumberADJ NumberVNO NumberReversal of NumbersLiquidation
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 355 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