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. ADJ9770975
Regular
Mar 13, 2020

GUSTAVO RUBALCAVA, vs. AMERJIT GILL AND COAST XPRESS AKA COAST EXPRESS, INC.,

This case concerns an award of additional attorney's fees to the applicant's attorney following a successful defense against the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Court of Appeal had remanded the matter for such an award. The Appeals Board awarded $20,500.00 in attorney's fees and $712.69 in costs, reducing the requested amounts due to duplicative entries and internal copying charges. The award is for services rendered in opposing the writ of review, considering the complexity of the issues and the quality of the appellate work.

Labor Code § 5801supplemental awardattorney's feeswrit of reviewFifth District Court of Appealverified petitionhourly rateappellate workreasonable feescomplexity of issues
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rotating Components, Inc. & District 4, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Petitioner moved to confirm an arbitration award, while Respondent cross-moved to vacate it, alleging imperfect execution and lack of a mutual, final, and definite award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement from December 1959, and a supplementary agreement from January 1960, which stipulated the assignment of the main agreement to a local union within 18 months, with arbitration if the assignment failed. The arbitrator issued an interim award on September 21, 1961, instructing the union to assign the agreement within 30 days. Upon the union's failure, the arbitrator, on October 29, 1961, assigned the agreement to a new local union to be formed for the employees of Rotating Components, Inc. The court found the arbitrator's award to be within his express powers and rejected the objection regarding the finality and definiteness of the award. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the award and denied the respondent's cross-motion to vacate it.

Arbitration AwardCollective BargainingUnion AssignmentContract DisputeMotion to ConfirmMotion to VacateLabor DisputeJudicial ReviewInterim AwardFinality of Award
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1989

Lange v. Sartorius, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which affirmed an arbitrators’ award in favor of the petitioner and denied the respondents’ cross-motion to vacate it. The dispute arose from the petitioner's termination of employment, which was submitted to arbitration as per their employment agreements. The arbitrators found that the respondents had not complied with the agreements and rendered a monetary award to the petitioner, considering his sudden departure. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards are given deference and are not subject to judicial review for merely erroneous factual findings unless completely irrational. Since the arbitrators' award was not irrational, the Supreme Court's order was affirmed.

Arbitration AwardConfirmation of AwardVacatur of AwardEmployment DisputeJudicial Review of ArbitrationDeference to ArbitratorsIrrational FindingsNew York LawFederal LawAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schmidt v. Falls Dodge, Inc.

The claimant was awarded a 21.43% schedule loss of use for binaural hearing loss in 2007. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that this award was not subject to temporary disability benefits the claimant was already receiving from earlier workers' compensation cases. The employer and State Insurance Fund appealed, contending that a Court of Appeals decision overruled prior holdings regarding the overlap of schedule and nonschedule awards. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing between schedule awards for future earnings loss and nonschedule awards for temporary disability during a limited time frame, concluding they do not overlap.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseTemporary DisabilityBinaural Hearing LossAward OverlapAppellate DecisionInsurance FundEmployer LiabilityMedical BenefitsEarnings Loss
References
3
Case No. ADJ1045902 (SFO 0500285) ADJ3255721 (SFO 0500284)
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

RONALD S. VERNA vs. CITY OF LOS ALTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

This case concerns an award of additional attorney's fees to applicant's counsel, as mandated by Labor Code § 5801 after a successful writ of review. The Court of Appeal had remanded the matter for this specific purpose. The Board reviewed the submitted time and hourly rate, disallowing certain hours for clerical work, media communication, and duplicate entries. Ultimately, the Board awarded $9,080.00 in appellate attorney's fees to applicant's counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental AwardAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Certified SpecialistClerical TimeMedia CorrespondenceDuplicated EntriesAppellate Attorney's Fee
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2002

In re the Arbitration between Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n & Building & Construction Trades Council

This case addresses a jurisdictional dispute between local labor unions regarding work on a construction project. The Supreme Court affirmed an arbitration award, finding both the petitioner and respondent locals were obligated to arbitrate under the New York Plan for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes. The court dismissed arguments regarding a separate national collective bargaining agreement involving the petitioner international union and employer, deeming it a "stranger" to the New York agreement. Consequently, the lower court's determination confirming the award in favor of the respondent local was unanimously affirmed. The petitioners' other contentions challenging the award were found unavailing.

ArbitrationLabor UnionJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementAward ConfirmationSupreme CourtContractual ObligationLabor LawWork AssignmentDispute Resolution
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C&D TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. International Ass'n of Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

This case involves cross-motions to vacate and confirm a labor arbitration award. Plaintiff C & D Technologies sought to set aside an award where Arbitrator Sheila Cole found the company violated its collective bargaining agreement by changing the "six week average" pay calculation. Defendant Local sought to confirm the award. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, reviewed whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, Section 10(a)(4). The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers, properly interpreted the ambiguous contract language, and her decision was rational. Consequently, the court denied the motion to set aside, granted the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationManifest Disregard for LawVacaturConfirmation of AwardSix Week Average PayWage Calculation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marino v. Edward Axel Roffman Associates, Inc.

The petitioner, referred to as the Union, moved to confirm an arbitrator's award, while the respondent, the employer, cross-moved to vacate the award and enjoin arbitration, arguing pre-emption by a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) grievance. The dispute arose from an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement concerning 'outside work' sent to other plants. During the arbitration hearing, the employer walked out after the arbitrator ruled to take evidence on the out-of-state plant, believing the issue was exclusively under NLRB jurisdiction. The court distinguished precedents cited by the employer, finding that a mere grievance, without a prior NLRB determination, does not establish res judicata or pre-emption. Consequently, the court granted the Union's motion to confirm the arbitrator's award and denied the employer's cross-motion.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationArbitrator's AwardNational Labor Relations BoardLabor DisputePre-emption DoctrineRes JudicataVacate AwardConfirm AwardWalkout from Hearing
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2006

Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of the City of New York, Inc. v. District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, affirming an earlier arbitrator’s award. The judgment, entered on January 17, 2006, by Justice Michael D. Stallman, confirmed an arbitrator's award dated September 2, 2004. The petitioners, who were not parties to the original arbitration between District Council 37 and the City of New York, sought to vacate this award. The court determined that the petitioners lacked standing, either statutorily or under common law, to seek the vacatur. Their claims of potential harm were deemed too speculative, especially since there was no evidence suggesting that any of their members would face layoffs or demotions as a result of the award. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the petition was unanimously affirmed by the appellate court.

Arbitration AwardStandingVacatur PetitionAppellate ReviewNew York LawSupreme CourtLabor DisputeDismissalAffirmed JudgmentCPLR
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2006

County of Westchester v. Doyle

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, that had denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award. The original order confirmed the award and directed interest on compensation for William Leverance's out-of-title work to be calculated from August 20, 2004. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial to vacate the arbitration award, determining that the award did not violate public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator's authority. However, the order was modified to direct that interest on the award be calculated from September 9, 2005, the date of the award, instead of August 20, 2004. All other contentions raised by the appellant were found to be without merit.

arbitrationawardvacaturCPLR Article 75out-of-title workinterest calculationappellate reviewjudicial modificationWestchester Countypublic policy
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 7,674 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