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. ADJ12376717
Regular
Mar 28, 2023

RONNIE JOHNSON vs. FUTURE PLASTERING, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an Opinion and Order dismissing a Petition for Removal. The petitioner, Future Plastering, Inc. and its insurer, Insurance Company of the West, voluntarily withdrew their petition. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the petition for removal of the August 24, 2022 decision.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFuture PlasteringInsurance Company of the WestRonnie JohnsonAdjudication NumberVan Nuys District OfficeOpinion and Order
References
0
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04473 [186 AD3d 594]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2020

Moreno v. Future Health Care Servs., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of class certification for a putative class action brought by former home health care aides against Future Health Care Services, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law article 19, specifically concerning minimum wage payments for 24-hour shifts. The court, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, considered the Department of Labor's interpretation of Minimum Wage Order Number 11, which permits exclusion of up to 11 hours for sleep and meal breaks in 24-hour shifts. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality, as they did not allege a lack of prescribed breaks or provide sufficient evidentiary basis for systemwide wage violations, thus failing to meet the requirements of CPLR article 9. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to deny class certification was upheld.

Class ActionLabor LawMinimum Wage24-hour ShiftsHome Health Care AidesClass CertificationWage OrderAppellate ReviewJudicial InterpretationNew York Department of Labor
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n v. International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades

This case involves an ongoing jurisdictional dispute between the Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Association (Plasterers Local 530) and the International Brotherhood of Painters and Aided Trades (Painters Local 1486) concerning 'skimcoating' work at the Nordstrom’s Project. The Plasterers initiated the action after the contractor, Island Taping, Inc., hired the Painters' Local 1486 instead of Local 530. After local and national arbitration attempts failed to resolve the arbitrability issue, the Plasterers requested the District Court to either compel arbitration or assume jurisdiction to decide the dispute and sought a preliminary injunction. The Court ruled that the question of arbitrability was not clearly delegated to the arbitrator and must be decided independently by the Court. A hearing has been ordered to determine if Local 1486 is affiliated with the New York Plan, which would establish arbitrability. The Court also denied the request for a preliminary injunction due to a lack of demonstrated irreparable harm.

jurisdictional disputelabor unionsarbitrationNational Labor Relations Actpreliminary injunctionarbitrabilityunion affiliationskimcoating workconstruction industryfederal court jurisdiction
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n Local 202 v. Board of Trustees of the Plastering Industry Welfare & Pension Trust Funds

This case addresses a dispute between two union locals, Local 202 and Local 60, both affiliated with the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association. Following Local 60's termination of a reciprocal agreement that facilitated the exchange of benefit contributions for members working outside their home jurisdiction, Local 202 sued, alleging violations of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and ERISA. The court found that Local 60's refusal to transfer contributions created a 'structural defect' in its benefit plans, which prevented Local 202 members from receiving benefits earned by their labor within Local 60's jurisdiction. Citing the 'sole and exclusive benefit' provision of the LMRA, the court concluded that reciprocity was legally required to prevent unjust enrichment. Consequently, the court granted Local 202's motion for summary judgment and denied Local 60's.

Union DisputeBenefit FundsEmployee BenefitsReciprocal AgreementLabor Management Relations ActERISAStructural DefectSummary JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentInter-union Agreement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1992

Jones v. Utilities Painting Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant, Consolidated Edison Co., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order had granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to include a cause of action for future medical surveillance costs and emotional distress against Consolidated Edison Co. The appellate court reversed the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion. The court found that the cause of action was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, citing several prior cases as precedent.

Medical Surveillance CostsEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Amendment of ComplaintAppealReversal of OrderMotion DeniedThird-Party DefendantSupreme CourtNew York Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ7370794
Regular
Nov 27, 2013

ALFREDO MONROY vs. CALIFORNIA PLASTERING, INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's prior decision in Monroy v. California Plastering, Inc. The Board returned the matter for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ, as the prior decision was not a final determination on the merits. The Board noted that a preliminary injunction regarding lien activation fees was not relevant in this case as the fee had been paid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationWCJPreliminary injunctionLien activation feeAngelotti ChiropracticRescindedFurther proceedingsTrial levelAlfredo Monroy
References
1
Case No. ADJ859899
Regular
Feb 25, 2011

FERNANDO SOSA vs. RIGOBERTO URIARTE DBA RIGO'S PLASTERING, UNISURED EMPLOYERS FUND

This case concerns a second petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Rigoberto Uriarte DBA Rigo's Plastering, challenging both the original administrative law judge's decision and the Board's prior denial of reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as legally impermissible, citing precedent that prohibits successive petitions after a decision has been rendered. The defendant's sole recourse after the Board's denial was to petition for a writ of review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalConsecutive PetitionSuccessive PetitionWrit of ReviewWCJ DecisionBoard DecisionCrowe Glass CompanyNavarro v. A&A Farming
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyde v. North River Insurance

This case examines whether an insurance carrier, having paid no-fault benefits, can assert a lien against a judgment recovered by its insured for pain, suffering, and future economic loss. The plaintiff, an injured insured, received $50,000 in no-fault benefits from North River Insurance Company. In a subsequent tort action against the County of Rensselaer, the plaintiff secured a $1,000,000 verdict. The insurance company filed a lien against this judgment. The Special Term and appellate courts affirmed that the lien was invalid because the jury's verdict explicitly excluded basic economic loss, thereby preventing a double recovery. The decision clarifies that liens are only enforceable against recoveries that duplicate previously paid basic economic losses.

No-Fault BenefitsInsurance LienSummary Judgment AppealPersonal Injury CompensationBasic Economic LossNon-Economic LossPain and Suffering DamagesDouble Recovery PreventionStatutory LienAutomobile Accident
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,467 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