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
Jan 12, 2009

Saunders v. City of New York

This collective action involves approximately 194 current and former municipal employees (Parent Coordinators and Parent Support Officers) who sued the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs alleged systematic violations of their overtime rights, including failure to pay time-and-a-half in cash, failure to pay for hours worked between 35 and 40, and wrongful conversion of compensatory time. They also sought equitable tolling of the statute of limitations due to defendants' failure to post required notices. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment regarding the unlawful provision of compensatory time in lieu of cash for overtime, as the collective bargaining agreement was silent on this matter. However, plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment on straight-time compensation and willfulness were denied. While defendants' overall motion for summary judgment was denied, the court *sua sponte* granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the 'failure to pay claim'.

FLSAOvertime CompensationCompensatory TimeCollective ActionSummary JudgmentEquitable TollingWillful ViolationPublic EmployeesLabor LawNew York City Department of Education
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salamea v. MacY's East, Inc.

Magaly Salamea, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Macy’s East, Inc., Federated Department Stores, Inc., and Fausto Friele, alleging negligence, failure to pay accrued vacation pay under New York State Labor Law § 198, and prima facie tort. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court denied Salamea's motion to remand, ruling that her state law claims for negligence and unpaid vacation pay were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, as their resolution required interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the preempted claims (Counts One and Three) for Salamea's failure to exhaust remedies under the CBA, and dismissing the remaining state law claims (Counts Two and Four) without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Labor Management Relations ActFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementNegligence ClaimUnpaid Vacation PayMotion to RemandMotion to DismissSupplemental JurisdictionExhaustion of RemediesEmployment At Will
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

6085 Strickland Associates v. Whitmore Group, Ltd.

This case involves an action where the plaintiff sued insurance brokers for negligent failure to procure insurance. The plaintiff alleged that the Genstar policy, intended for a vacant property, should have remained active alongside the Sirius policy, which covered construction-related liabilities. The Genstar policy was cancelled due to unpaid premiums. The plaintiff contended that the brokers had a duty to reinstate the policy or procure replacement coverage. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant brokers' cross-motion, finding no breach of duty. The plaintiff failed to pay the premium after receiving a cancellation notice, and there was no evidence of a specific request for the Genstar policy's renewal or concurrent operation with the Sirius policy. The brokers fulfilled their obligation by securing the Sirius policy.

Negligent failure to procure insuranceInsurance brokersSummary judgmentPolicy cancellationPremium nonpaymentConstruction insuranceLitigation costsDuty of brokerReplacement policyInsurance Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

522939 Matter of W.M. Schultz Construction, Inc. v. Musolino

Petitioners W.M. Schultz Construction, Inc. and William M. Schultz challenged a determination by the New York State Department of Labor which found they failed to pay prevailing wages for a project at Saratoga Race Course. The Department of Labor concluded that a contract between the New York Racing Association (NYRA) and Schultz Construction was subject to prevailing wage laws. The Court reviewed the determination to ascertain if the project qualified as a 'public work' requiring public funding. The Court found no substantial evidence that the project was paid for by public funds, as NYRA did not receive direct state funds for this project and funds transferred from a predecessor entity (Old NYRA) were not earmarked for capital works. Consequently, the Court annulled the determination and granted the petitions, ruling the project was not a public work subject to prevailing wage obligations.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic WorksCPLR Article 78Labor LawAnnulmentContract LawGovernment ContractsPublic FundsSubstantial EvidenceNew York Racing Association
References
8
Case No. ADJ3909509
Regular
Apr 11, 2017

URSULA MILLS GRIFFIN vs. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. HOSPITAL/COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to vacate its prior order granting reconsideration and dismiss the lien claimant's petition. This is due to issues with notice for a lien conference and the lien claimant's failure to appear, as well as potential dismissal by operation of law for failure to pay a lien activation fee. The WCAB is providing the lien claimant an opportunity to submit proof that they attempted to pay the activation fee by the deadline.

WCABLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalNotice of IntentionWCJLien ConferencePaperwork More CarsonNotice of RepresentationDeclaration of Readiness
References
7
Case No. ADJ8229800
Regular
Oct 08, 2013

JULIO LOPEZ vs. TJS CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Bodner Chiropractic's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the dismissal of its lien claim for failure to pay the required activation fee. Bodner's assertion that it couldn't locate the lien or pay the fee prior to the conference was insufficient to excuse the non-payment. While the Board found no clear proof the petition was untimely, the core reason for denial remains the lien claimant's failure to meet the activation fee payment deadline. The decision reiterates that lien activation fees must be paid before a lien conference commences.

Lien activation feeElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Lien claimantWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Dismissing Lien ClaimLabor Code section 4903.06Figueroa v. B.C. Doering Co.Compromise and Release
References
1
Case No. ADJ171587
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

MARCUS VASQUEZ vs. MARION RESIDENCE, FIREMANS FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order suspending Integrated Healthcare Recovery Services (IHRS) from appearing before the board. This suspension stemmed from IHRS's failure to pay a $1,000 sanction previously imposed for missing a lien trial. The WCAB has now issued a notice of intent to suspend IHRS unless the sanction is paid within 20 days, citing IHRS's failure to comply with a final order as good cause. IHRS may avoid suspension by paying the sanction or demonstrating good cause to the WCAB.

Labor Code Section 4907Petition for ReconsiderationSuspension of AppearanceWCABWCJSanction OrderLien TrialFinal OrderFailure to PayHearing Representative
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esmilla v. Cosmopolitan Club

Plaintiff Julia Esmilla sued her former employer, The Cosmopolitan Club, alleging retaliatory termination for complaining about labor law violations concerning the "Pegasus Fund" and failure to pay a guaranteed annual bonus. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting lack of a colorable labor law violation and arguing that the bonus was not an 'earned wage.' The Court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the retaliation claim related to a proposed budget violation due to its prospective nature. However, the motion was denied for other retaliation claims, breach of contract regarding the guaranteed bonus, and failure to pay earned wages, citing triable issues of fact.

Employment RetaliationNew York Labor LawWage DisputesGuaranteed BonusSummary JudgmentPegasus FundService ChargesGratuitiesBreach of ContractStatute of Frauds
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larabee v. Governor of the State

Members of the New York State Judiciary initiated a lawsuit against various State of New York officials, challenging the government's failure to increase judicial compensation since 1999. The plaintiffs asserted two causes of action: an unconstitutional diminishment of compensation due to inflation and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine through the practice of 'linkage' – tying judicial salary increases to legislative pay raises. The Supreme Court dismissed the first cause of action and all claims against the Governor, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the second cause of action, finding that linkage unconstitutionally abused power by depriving the Judiciary of compensation increases. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, agreeing that legislative inaction did not constitute a direct diminishment of compensation but that the employed 'linkage' violated the separation of powers by subordinating the judicial branch to the political maneuvering of the executive and legislative branches. The dismissal of the Governor as a defendant was also affirmed.

Judicial CompensationSeparation of PowersLegislative ImmunityJudicial IndependenceConstitutional LawLinkage DoctrineInflation ImpactNew York State GovernmentBudgetary PoliticsAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2010

Morris v. David Lerner Associates

Dora Morris sued her former employer, David Lerner Associates (DLA), and its President, David Lerner, for employment discrimination. She alleged gender discrimination due to unequal pay and a hostile work environment, claiming she was paid less than male counterparts and subjected to inappropriate comments and actions by Lerner. Morris also alleged retaliatory termination after complaining about the pay disparity. Defendants moved to dismiss parts of the complaint, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the defendants' motion, finding that Morris's hostile work environment and retaliatory termination claims were reasonably related to her EEOC charge and were adequately pled under legal standards.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionPleading StandardTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawDisparate Treatment
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 4,379 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