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

Jones v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency

This memorandum-decision and order addresses defendants' motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, an African-American, alleged racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation by the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA) and individual defendants under Title VII, NYSHRL, and §§ 1981a, 1983. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissing NYSHRL claims due to the election of remedies doctrine. Title VII claims against individual defendants were deemed redundant or untimely. The court found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation, or to show pretext. Hostile work environment claims were dismissed for lack of exhaustion and insufficient evidence. Conspiracy and New York Public Authorities Law claims were also dismissed, leading to the closure of the case.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Islip Resource Recovery Agency

This action stems from a contractual dispute regarding the construction of a waste disposal plant between Pennsylvania Energy Resources Company (PERC), Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation (PEC), and the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. Following an arbitrator's decision finding PERC in default, which was confirmed by the court on April 12, 1989, dismissing plaintiffs' case, PERC and PEC moved to reargue and amend their complaint. They sought to vacate the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator bias, attempting to relate back the amended complaint. The Court denied these motions, emphasizing that the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month statute of limitations for vacating an award has no common law or Rule 15(c) exceptions under these circumstances. The court further found that the plaintiffs were aware of potential bias at the time of selecting the arbitrator, thus precluding equitable tolling.

ArbitrationContractual DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActRule 15cRelation Back DoctrineEquitable TollingArbitrator BiasStatute of LimitationsMotion to Amend
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Double Green Produce, Inc. v. Forum Supermarket Inc.

Plaintiff Double Green Produce, Inc. sued Defendants Forum Supermarket Inc. and Hong Wen Cai for failure to pay for wholesale produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and other claims. After Defendants defaulted, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. Although initially recommended for denial due to jurisdictional concerns, the Court allowed Plaintiff to submit additional information. Upon review, the Court found Forum to be a PACA 'dealer' and that Plaintiff had preserved its trust rights. The Court determined Defendants' default was willful and that Defendant Cai was personally liable for dissipating trust assets. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding $23,080.75 in damages, $5579.82 in prejudgment interest, and $4074.25 in attorneys' fees, totaling $32,734.82.

PACAPerishable Agricultural CommoditiesDefault JudgmentBreach of ContractStatutory TrustFiduciary DutyInterstate CommerceWholesale ProduceDamages AwardPrejudgment Interest
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKenna v. County of Nassau Office of County Attorney

In a case involving an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, a police officer sought to modify an arbitrator's award related to no-fault benefits. The officer, injured in a job-related accident, received full salary under General Municipal Law § 207-c and also applied for no-fault benefits. The arbitrator's award did not deduct the wage continuation payments, leading Special Term to vacate the award to prevent double recovery. The appellate court reversed Special Term's decision, finding the arbitrator's award was not irrational enough to warrant vacatur. However, the court did modify the award due to a miscalculation, acknowledging a statutory loophole in the original no-fault law that permitted such double recovery, which has since been legislatively closed.

Arbitration AwardNo-Fault Insurance BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law 207-cDouble RecoveryStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReversalCPLR 7511Police Officer InjuryInsurance Law § 671Miscalculation of Award
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 1982

Palmer v. Allstate Insurance

William D. Palmer and the United States Department of Labor appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied confirmation of an arbitration award. The central issue was whether the arbitrator’s failure to deduct Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) payments from an award of first-party benefits under the New York No-Fault Insurance Law was so irrational as to require vacatur. Palmer, a United States Postal Service employee, had received $28,476.66 in FECA benefits for lost wages and medical expenses following a motor vehicle accident. The arbitrator subsequently awarded Palmer $28,476.60 in no-fault benefits without deducting the FECA payments. The Special Term denied confirmation, ruling that the award constituted an impermissible double recovery, contrary to Insurance Law § 671 (2) (b), and lacked a rational basis. The Appellate Division affirmed the Special Term's judgment, holding that the arbitrator's failure to deduct the FECA payments was irrational and contrary to the plain language of the statute, the Superintendent of Insurance's regulations, and the legislative intent to prevent double recovery for economic loss under the no-fault scheme.

No-Fault Insurance LawArbitration Award ConfirmationFederal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA)Double RecoveryStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review of ArbitrationVacatur of AwardFirst-Party BenefitsAutomobile Insurance ReparationsDeduction of Benefits
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shutter v. Philips Display Components Co.

Claimant Charlotte Shutter was injured in a work-related auto accident. Her employer's workers' compensation carrier sought to offset future compensation payments by the uninsured motorist benefits she recovered from her own insurance policy. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied the offset, but the Workers’ Compensation Board and Appellate Division reversed, allowing the offset. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 only allows offsets for recoveries against third-party tortfeasors, and uninsured motorist benefits from the claimant's own policy do not fall into this category. The court emphasized that the statute should be strictly construed and that uninsured motorist coverage does not represent recovery from a tortfeasor, nor does it result in a double recovery for the same elements of loss.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29Uninsured Motorist BenefitsInsurance OffsetSubrogation RightsThird-Party TortfeasorFirst-Party CoverageStatutory ConstructionPermanent Partial DisabilityAutomobile AccidentNew York Court of Appeals
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1978

Hasten v. Morse Electro Products Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that authorized a double indemnity award under section 14-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The claimant, who was 17 years old, misrepresented his age as 18 when applying for employment, and the employer did not request his working papers. A compensable injury subsequently occurred, and the Board found the employer in violation of Labor Law sections 132 and 135, which require minors under 18 to present an employment certificate. The court affirmed the decision, ruling that the employer's failure to see the work permit constituted a violation of the Labor Law, thereby justifying the double compensation, despite the employment being otherwise permissible. The court noted the strictness of the law but was bound by precedent.

Workers' CompensationMinor EmploymentDouble IndemnityLabor Law ViolationEmployment CertificateWork PermitAge MisrepresentationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEducation Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mauro v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

The case addresses whether a secured party, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), is liable for an assault committed by an independent contractor's employees, Anthony and Edward Russo from Tri-City Auto Recovery, during a vehicle repossession. Plaintiffs Maureen and John Mauro allege assault and battery, contending the repossession breached the peace. GMAC argued it was not liable due to Tri-City being an independent contractor. The court, citing UCC 9-503 and various precedents, ruled that the duty to repossess without a breach of the peace is nondelegable. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment by GMAC and Tri-City Auto Recovery, seeking dismissal of the complaint, were denied, establishing GMAC's potential liability for the actions of its independent contractor's employees.

RepossessionBreach of PeaceIndependent Contractor LiabilityUCC 9-503Nondelegable DutyAssault and BatterySummary JudgmentSecured TransactionsDebtor's RightsVicarious Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2004

Claim of Provoncha v. Anytime Home Care, Inc.

A 17-year-old certified nurses aid, identified as the claimant, sustained a back injury while employed by Anytime Home Care, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Board initiated proceedings to determine if her employment violated the Labor Law, which would entitle her to double compensation under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a. Despite requests, the employer failed to produce the required employment certificate at two hearings and its requests for further adjournments or to present alternative testimony were denied. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found the claimant was illegally employed due to the lack of an employment certificate. Consequently, the Board affirmed her entitlement to double compensation. The appellate court reviewed the employer's contentions and ultimately affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationChild Labor LawIllegal EmploymentDouble CompensationEmployment CertificateAdministrative HearingAppellate ReviewEmployer ResponsibilityLabor Law ViolationWorkers' Compensation Board
References
5
Case No. ADJ1416396 (OXN 0147357) ADJ7453200
Regular
Jul 08, 2011

, Applicant, RICHARD DAVIS, vs. , BOTTLING GROUP LLC dba PEPSI BEVERAGES COMPANY; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT for OLD REPUBLIC,

This case involved an employee who sustained two industrial injuries, one from a third-party's negligence and another cumulative trauma injury. The employer sought to apply a credit for the employee's net third-party recovery against the total workers' compensation award. The Appeals Board denied the employee's petition for reconsideration, upholding the employer's right to this credit. This decision affirmed that a third-party credit can be applied even when industrial injuries are intertwined and awarded jointly, to prevent the employee from obtaining a double recovery.

Petition for ReconsiderationThird-Party CreditJoint and Several AwardDouble RecoveryCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryAgreed Medical EvaluatorUnapportioned Permanent DisabilityBenson v. Permanente Medical GroupBenson v. Workers' Comp Appeal Bd.
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 568 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