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. M2012-00341-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2013

Martin D. Red Patterson, as a Citizen of the State of Tennessee, and as Business Manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 369 v. The Convention Center Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Co.

This case addresses whether the residential addresses of employees of third-party contractors, found in payroll records submitted to the Convention Center Authority (CCA), are exempt from disclosure under the Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA). Petitioners, Martin D. Patterson and Wayne Wells, sought these records to investigate compliance with prevailing wage laws and local hiring commitments for a public construction project. The CCA had redacted employee home addresses and social security numbers, citing privacy rights and exemptions under state and federal law. The trial court ruled that home addresses were not exempt and ordered their disclosure, though it denied attorney's fees to the petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the TPRA does not explicitly or implicitly exempt such addresses from disclosure, and federal FOIA balancing tests are not applicable to the TPRA's framework. The appellate court further upheld the denial of attorney's fees, acknowledging the CCA's good faith in resisting disclosure.

Public Records ActEmployee PrivacyStatutory InterpretationGovernment ContractsPrevailing WageDisclosure LawsAppellate DecisionTennessee LawFOIA ComparisonAttorney Fee Discretion
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
Case No. 13-06-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2008

Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and Margaret Hoffman in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

This case involves an appeal by Canyon Regional Water Authority (Canyon Regional) regarding water rates charged by Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (Guadalupe-Blanco) and the administrative rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the Commission). Canyon Regional challenged Guadalupe-Blanco's rate increases, arguing they were not

Water Rate AppealContractual InterpretationAdministrative LawDeclaratory ReliefAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentPublic Interest HearingTexas Commission on Environmental QualityGuadalupe-Blanco River AuthorityCanyon Regional Water Authority
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2001

Lamuraglia v. New York City Transit Authority

Vincenzo Lamuraglia, a construction worker, was injured after being struck by a New York City Transit Authority bus while working. He and his wife, Rosa Lamuraglia, sued the Transit Authority entities, which then initiated a third-party action against Vincenzo's employer, Premium Landscaping, Inc. A jury found the Transit Authority 65% at fault and Premium 35% at fault, awarding damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of services. The Supreme Court reduced some of these awards. On appeal, the judgment was modified, granting a new trial on damages unless the plaintiffs agree to further reductions in their awards for pain and suffering and loss of services. The appellate court also rejected the Transit Authority's arguments regarding jury instructions on pedestrian duty of care and the emergency doctrine.

Personal InjuryNegligenceDamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityComparative FaultWorkplace AccidentBus AccidentDuty of Care
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Samuelsen v. New York City Transit Authority

The case concerns a dispute between Local 100, Transport Workers Union of Greater New York (the Union) and the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Authority (MaBSTOA). The Union challenged a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a consolidation agreement that aimed to merge MaBSTOA and TA surface transit operations, arguing that these agreements violated Public Authorities Law § 1203-a (3) (b). This law prohibits MaBSTOA employees from becoming, 'for any purpose,' employees of the TA, acquiring civil service status, or becoming members of NYCERS. The Union contended that the agreements effectively made MaBSTOA employees into TA employees, thereby violating the statute. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the validity of the agreements and procedural defenses. The motion court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed this decision, agreeing with the Union's interpretation of the statute and finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action.

Workers' RightsCollective BargainingStatutory InterpretationPublic Authorities LawCivil ServiceEmployment LawUnion DisputeConsolidation AgreementEmployer LiabilityDismissal Reversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) faced a significant budget deficit and implemented fare/toll increases and token booth closures. Public interest groups challenged these decisions, alleging that the MTA's public hearing notices were misleading and incomplete regarding financial details and alternative solutions. Lower courts initially sided with the petitioners, vacating the MTA's actions. However, on appeal, the court reversed these rulings, asserting that the MTA's notices complied with statutory requirements and were neither false nor misleading. The court emphasized the legislative role in setting disclosure standards and affirmed the MTA's authority, especially concerning the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's toll-fixing powers. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the MTA's original decisions.

Public TransportationFare IncreaseToll IncreaseBudget DeficitPublic HearingsStatutory ComplianceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vey v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Clarence Vey, an employee of subcontractor Ermco Erectors, Inc., was injured on a Port Authority construction site. Vey and his wife sued the Port Authority and others, leading to a settlement and a finding of 50% liability each for Port Authority and Ermco. The Port Authority sought indemnification from Grand Iron Works, Inc., the main contractor, who then cross-claimed against Ermco for indemnification. The core legal issue was whether Ermco's contractual indemnity clause with Grand Iron covered Grand Iron's liability to the Port Authority, arising from Vey's work. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that Ermco was contractually obligated to indemnify Grand Iron for all damages arising from Ermco's work, reinstating Grand Iron's judgment.

indemnificationsubcontractor liabilitycontractor liabilityconstruction accidentcontractual indemnitythird-party claimcross-claimtort liabilitynegligenceworkers' compensation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friedar v. Government of Israel

Samuel Friedar, a New York citizen, sued the Government of Israel and its branches for failing to compensate him for medical costs and expenses incurred after being injured while serving in the Israeli Army in 1948. Friedar alleged breach of contract, intentional withholding of information, negligent loss of files, and wrongful conversion of funds. The Government moved to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1604 and that the action was barred by the Act of State doctrine. The Court found that the Government was entitled to sovereign immunity, rejecting Friedar's arguments for exceptions based on waiver or commercial activity. Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Court would dismiss the case under the Act of State doctrine, citing the impropriety of reviewing a foreign state's internal administrative activity, especially regarding military and veterans' benefits. The Government’s motion to dismiss was granted.

Sovereign ImmunityAct of State DoctrineMotion to DismissForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAGovernmental ImmunityCommercial Activity ExceptionVeterans' BenefitsJurisdictionInternational Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nickels v. New York City Housing Authority

The case concerns the legality of the New York City Housing Authority's (Housing Authority) vote to involuntarily transfer its police officers to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) under Civil Service Law § 70 (2). The petitioner, Timothy L. Nickels, representing Housing Police officers, sought to void this transfer and enjoin the Housing Authority, arguing it lacked legal authorization and would harm officers' contractual benefits, including pension and workers' compensation. The court examined whether the Housing Authority constitutes a 'civil division of the state' under Civil Service Law § 70 (2) and its legislative history, concluding that public authorities are excluded. It also determined that legislative action is required to protect employees' constitutionally guaranteed pension and seniority rights, which would be impaired by the proposed merger without such authorization. Consequently, the court granted the petition, permanently enjoining the involuntary transfers and the dissemination of officers' payroll information, and directing the return of any such documentation.

Civil Service LawPublic AuthoritiesPolice TransferPension RightsConstitutional LawLegislative IntentInter-agency MergerCivil Division of StatePublic Employee BenefitsInjunctive Relief
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 4,563 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