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

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oshode v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought disability and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after being injured in a slip-and-fall incident in January 2009. Her applications were denied by the respondent, who adopted the Hearing Officer's findings that the disability application was untimely and the performance of duty claim lacked proof of an inmate's act. In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the court affirmed the denial. It ruled that the disability application was indeed untimely, as workers' compensation and vacation pay did not qualify as "on the payroll" payments under Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-a (b) (2). Additionally, the court upheld the denial of performance of duty benefits, noting the petitioner's concession that an inmate did not cause her injury.

Disability Retirement BenefitsPerformance of Duty DisabilityCorrection Officer InjuryTimeliness of ApplicationRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation BenefitsPayroll PaymentsInmate Act RequirementJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Waterview Nursing Home

A 63-year-old nurse’s aide sustained work-related injuries and her workers’ compensation case was established. She was offered a light-duty position by her employer, but her daughter informed the employer that claimant could not work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the specifics of the light-duty position, its requirements, duties, or suitability for the claimant's medical limitations. The court held that without such proof, the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLight-Duty AssignmentVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketMedical LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittiturNurse's AideEmployment Benefits
References
3
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02096
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2016

Matter of Nassau County Sheriff's Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. Nassau County

John Thomas, a correction officer, sustained a back injury in 1998 and subsequently received General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. After periods of restricted duty and military service, medical evaluations in 2009 determined he was unfit for any duty, reinstating his benefits. However, in February 2010, a County-appointed doctor deemed him fit for light-duty work, leading the Nassau County Sheriff's Department to discontinue his benefits. Thomas and his labor union challenged this decision, arguing a due process violation due to the hearing officer placing the burden of proof on Thomas to demonstrate his unfitness. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's dismissal, concluding that Thomas was afforded due process as he had the opportunity to present evidence and requiring him to support his claim of continued total disability was permissible.

CPLR Article 78 ProceedingGeneral Municipal Law § 207-c BenefitsDue Process RightsBurden of ProofLight-Duty AssignmentCorrection Officer InjuryDiscontinuation of BenefitsAppellate ReviewProperty InterestCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haley v. Platnick

Plaintiffs, trustees of the Training and Education Fund of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 417, sought a declaratory judgment to void an employment contract between the Fund and defendant Rose, its administrator, and injunctive relief against payments under the contract. They alleged violations of § 302(a) and (b) of the Labor Management Relations Act, claiming Rose breached his fiduciary duty as trustee, the contract lacked proper approval, and payments to Rose constituted illegal employer payments to an employee representative. The court held it lacked jurisdiction over claims related to breaches of fiduciary duty or internal fund maladministration, as these are primarily governed by state law. However, the court did acknowledge jurisdiction over the claim that payments to Rose represented an attempt to evade § 302 by disguising employer payments to a union representative through the fund structure. After examining the evidence, the court found no proof that the payments to Rose were disguised employer payments, only a breach of fiduciary duty by the trustees. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the Act, and their complaint was dismissed.

Collective BargainingLabor Management Relations ActTrust Fund AdministrationFiduciary DutyEmployee BenefitsUnion OfficialEmployer ContributionsDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefContract Validity
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust

This case involves Ann Rupe, a minority shareholder and trustee for Buddy's Trust, who sued other shareholders and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation (RIC) for alleged oppressive actions and breach of fiduciary duties. Rupe claimed the defendants refused to buy her shares or meet with prospective outside buyers. The trial court ordered a $7.3 million buyout, which the court of appeals affirmed in part, finding the refusal to meet prospective purchasers oppressive, but remanding on valuation. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the defendants' conduct was not 'oppressive' under the Texas receivership statute, as it did not involve an abuse of authority with intent to harm the corporation or create a serious risk of harm to it. The Court clarified that the statute only authorizes the appointment of a rehabilitative receiver and does not permit a direct buyout remedy. Additionally, the Court declined to recognize a new common-law cause of action for 'minority shareholder oppression,' citing existing statutory and common-law protections. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Rupe's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and the potential for a buyout remedy under that claim.

Shareholder OppressionMinority ShareholdersClosely Held CorporationsFiduciary DutyBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate ReceivershipStatutory InterpretationCommon Law ClaimsCorporate GovernanceStock Buyout
References
95
Showing 1-10 of 4,941 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