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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff Irving A. Gelb (pro se) filed a case ("Gelb II") against the Board of Elections in the City of New York and its individual members and employees, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights concerning write-in voting procedures in the 1997 elections for Bronx Borough President. This case mirrored an earlier, unsuccessful action ("Gelb I") regarding the 1993 elections. Gelb claimed that the Board failed to provide adequate means or instructions for write-in voting, particularly in primary elections without an "opportunity to ballot" petition. The court denied Gelb's motions for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the Board's procedures were constitutionally permissible, that no pervasive unfairness was demonstrated, and that sufficient state law remedies were available. Consequently, his state law claims were also dismissed.

Election LawWrite-in VotingSummary JudgmentFederal ClaimsState Law RemediesDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentPro Se Litigant
References
24
Case No. Nos. 56 & 58
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2020

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two consolidated cases, *Matter of Seawright* and *Matter of Hawatmeh*, to resolve a departmental split regarding the interpretation of Election Law filing deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic. In *Seawright*, the Appellate Division, First Department, had excused a candidate's belated filing of a cover sheet and certificate of acceptance due to COVID-19 related illness and quarantine, deeming it not a fatal defect. Conversely, in *Hawatmeh*, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found a candidate's late filing of a certificate of acceptance to be a fatal defect despite pandemic circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed the *Seawright* decision and affirmed the *Hawatmeh* decision, holding that Election Law § 1-106 (2) mandates strict compliance with filing deadlines. The Court concluded that the failure to timely file constitutes a fatal defect that courts cannot excuse, even under unique or extenuating circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing that it is the legislature's role to fashion exceptions to the law. Dissenting judges argued for a more flexible interpretation based on legislative intent behind pandemic-related laws and prior Election Law reforms, allowing for substantial compliance during the unprecedented health crisis.

Election LawCOVID-19 PandemicFiling DeadlinesFatal DefectStrict ComplianceBallot AccessJudicial DiscretionLegislative IntentAppellate Division ConflictQuarantine Requirements
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 1996

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Plaintiff Irving Gelb challenged the New York State Board of Elections, alleging violations of his federal and state rights during the 1993 Bronx County Democratic Party primary and general election. Gelb, a write-in candidate, claimed the Board failed to properly inform voters about write-in options and provide necessary means like ballot space and pencils. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, while denying Gelb's motion. The court found that the alleged election irregularities did not amount to pervasive unfairness or intentional discrimination to constitute a federal constitutional violation under due process or equal protection clauses, and adequate state remedies were available. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Election LawWrite-in VotingConstitutional RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsAbstention DoctrineVoting Irregularities
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Chief Justice Enoch concurs with the majority's result but dissents from their reasoning that Workers' Compensation Act claims and intentional tort claims are mutually exclusive, arguing against the applicability of the election of remedies doctrine. He asserts that intentional injuries are distinct from accidental injuries, citing established legal precedents and the historical interpretation of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act since 1913. Enoch further highlights that employees would not receive double recoveries due to the insurer's statutory subrogation rights, thus negating the need for an election of remedies. He concludes that Ramirez should be allowed to pursue his intentional tort claim without the election of remedies doctrine acting as a defense.

Workers' Compensation ActIntentional TortElection of Remedies DoctrineExclusive Remedy ProvisionAccidental InjuriesSubrogation RightsEmployer LiabilityCommon Law ActionTexas Workers' CompensationJudicial Interpretation
References
9
Case No. No. 41
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case addresses whether electronic copies of voted ballots are exempt from disclosure under New York's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) based on Election Law § 3-222(2). Petitioner Bethany Kosmider sought electronic ballot images from the November 2015 general election from the Essex County Board of Elections. The County Attorney denied the request, citing Election Law § 3-222(2), which restricts examination of "voted ballots" for two years without a court order. While lower courts ordered disclosure, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory restriction applies equally to electronic copies of ballots, thereby precluding their release under FOIL during the two-year period without proper judicial or legislative directive. The decision emphasizes the legislative intent to balance ballot secrecy, anti-tampering measures, accuracy, and finality in the electoral process.

Election LawFOILBallot SecrecyElectronic BallotsVoted BallotsPublic RecordsStatutory InterpretationCourt OrderLegislative IntentGovernment Transparency
References
59
Case No. 2017-03-0889
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2018

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case concerns Erik Cooper's request for expedited hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits against Tragedy Girls Pictures, LLC. The primary legal issues addressed were subject matter jurisdiction in Tennessee and the application of the election of remedies doctrine. The Court found that Tennessee likely had jurisdiction because the contract for hire was accepted by Mr. Cooper in Tennessee. However, the claim was ultimately denied because Mr. Cooper had affirmatively pursued and accepted benefits under California workers' compensation law, thereby precluding recovery under Tennessee law through the election of remedies doctrine.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionElection of RemediesContract for HireCalifornia Workers' CompTennessee LawExpedited HearingQMEMedical ImpairmentInterstate Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Christopher A. Eadie was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1997 while working for Complete Company, Inc. He subsequently filed workers' compensation claims in South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Complete and its insurer, Westfield Insurance Companies, moved for summary judgment in Tennessee, arguing Eadie was precluded by the election of remedies doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Eadie's active pursuit of his claim in South Carolina constituted a binding election of remedies, barring his Tennessee claim. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this finding, but the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Eadie's actions in South Carolina were sufficient affirmative acts to constitute a binding election of remedies.

Workers' CompensationElection of RemediesInterstate ClaimSummary JudgmentJurisdictionTennessee Supreme CourtSouth Carolina Workers' CompensationAffirmative ActForum ShoppingDouble Recovery
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Plaintiff Sharon Gorenflo sued Penske Logistics, LLC and several individuals, including Union representatives, under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), alleging breach of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for wrongful suspension and termination without just cause. She also initially asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, which were dismissed and her suit converted exclusively to an LMRA claim. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the suit was barred by New York's election of remedies doctrine due to a prior complaint filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). The court denied the motion to dismiss against Penske, finding the DHR complaint, which alleged discrimination, did not sufficiently overlap with the federal breach of contract claims to invoke the election of remedies doctrine. However, the court granted dismissal of the breach of contract claims against individual defendants Cole, Miletics, Quinn, Svingala, and Hitchcock, as they were not signatories to the CBA, a requirement for LMRA claims against individuals.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractDuty of Fair RepresentationElection of Remedies DoctrineMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Non-Signatory DefendantsIndividual Liability
References
12
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Taylor Ted Emery and Claude Bellar contested the August 1978 elections for Sheriff and Fourth District County Commission positions in Robertson County. The Chancellor initially found irregularities but believed they didn't affect the outcome for the Sheriff's race or one County Commissioner, though a supplemental opinion later ordered a new election for the second Commissioner. On appeal, the Supreme Court identified numerous violations of absentee voting statutes and inconsistencies in the lower court's rulings. The court determined that the extent of the irregularities, including the personal participation of the incumbent Sheriff in handling absentee ballot applications, rendered both the Sheriff's election and all Fourth District County Commission elections incurably uncertain. As a result, all contested elections were voided, and the respective offices declared vacant, with costs assigned to the Robertson County Election Commission.

election lawvoter irregularitiesabsentee votingelection fraud opportunityjudicial review of electionscounty government electionssheriff electionTennessee Supreme Courtstatutory violationsincurable uncertainty
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 4,007 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