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. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1986

Durivage v. Diamond International Corp.

The claimant, employed by Diamond International Corporation, was discharged due to an extremely poor attendance record, despite having sustained two compensable injuries. After her discharge, she filed a grievance, and an arbitrator upheld the employer's decision, finding it justified. Subsequently, the claimant filed a claim alleging that her termination was in retaliation for filing compensation claims. However, the Workers' Compensation Board rejected this claim, a decision which was later affirmed on appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion, noting that most of the claimant's absences were unrelated to her work injuries and that she had received multiple warnings regarding her attendance.

Retaliatory dischargePoor attendanceWorkers' compensation claimEmployer discriminationJustified terminationArbitrator findingAttendance policySubstantial evidenceBoard decisionAppellate review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2008

Auchampaugh v. Syracuse University

This appeal concerns General Electric International, Inc.'s (GE) motion for summary judgment on a contractual indemnification claim against International Chimney Corporation, the employer of an injured worker. The underlying personal injury action, based on Labor Law violations, was previously dismissed entirely. The core issue was whether International Chimney had entered into a written agreement to indemnify GE, a requirement under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. GE presented an unsigned purchase order and standard terms, including an indemnification clause, but International Chimney raised questions of fact regarding the agreement's formation and acceptance, citing a project manager's affidavit, a GE representative's testimony, and non-compliance with document requirements. The Supreme Court denied GE's motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute of material fact, and the appellate court affirmed this decision.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Written ContractQuestions of FactEmployer LiabilityLabor LawAppellate ReviewPurchase Order
References
9
Case No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2000

Gallagher v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF ELEC. WORKERS

Plaintiff Michael Gallagher sued several entities, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and its President J.J. Barry, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation through IBEW Local Union No. 43's hiring hall. Gallagher claimed the collective bargaining agreement facilitated discrimination against older workers and that Local 43 was an agent of the International defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name the International defendants in his EEOC charge, thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies and that no identity of interest existed between the named and unnamed parties. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the International defendants due to Gallagher's failure to file an administrative complaint against them and the lack of an agency relationship or ratification of discriminatory acts. Furthermore, the court found the claims to be time-barred under both state and federal statutes of limitations.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionCollective Bargaining AgreementEEOCNYSDHRExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Judgment on PleadingsStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gould v. International Paper Co.

Plaintiff Lawrence Gould sustained a severe head injury while performing logging work for his father on property owned by International Paper Company. Plaintiff and his wife initiated an action against G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc., International Paper Company, and International Paper Timberlands Operating Company, alleging that G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. left the property in a dangerous condition by allowing hanging trees to remain, which caused the plaintiff's injuries. Earlier in the litigation, International Paper Company was granted summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, on the grounds of a lack of proximate cause evidence. Subsequently, G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, citing factual issues from a second deposition. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment to G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. is reversed. The appellate court ruled that the doctrine of the law of the case precluded reconsideration of the proximate cause issue, as it had already been judicially determined on facts common to all defendants. The court also found the second deposition testimony to be inconsistent, speculative, and lacking probative value. Summary judgment is granted to G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc., and the complaint against it is dismissed.

Summary JudgmentProximate CauseLaw of the CaseLogging AccidentPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityDangerous Property ConditionDeposition Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1983

Claim of McIntosh v. International Business Machines, Inc.

Claimant suffered a back injury on September 29, 1977, while working for International Business Machines, Inc. She continued to work until October 21, 1977, but subsequently experienced frequent absences due to disability. The Workers' Compensation Board made varying determinations regarding her disability, ultimately classifying it as a permanent partial disability with a 75% earning capacity. Despite conflicting medical opinions from numerous doctors, the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The decision appealed from found that claimant had a permanent partial disability, and the appellate court affirmed this decision.

Permanent Partial DisabilityEarning CapacityMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceBoard DeterminationBack InjuryEmployment InjuryAffirmed DecisionJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curry v. American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502

Curry, a former Regional Insurance Underwriting Manager for AIG, sued American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502 and American International Life Assurance Co. of New York ("AI Life") under ERISA § 502(a) after her long-term disability benefits were terminated. Curry suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis and diabetes. AI Life initially approved her benefits but later terminated them, alleging she could perform a sedentary occupation, relying on unverified medical responses. The court found AI Life's decision to be arbitrary and capricious due to its reliance on unreliable medical opinions, failure to clarify the record, and disregard for Curry's doctors' reports. Consequently, the court granted Curry's motion for summary judgment, denying the defendants' motion, and ordered the reinstatement of her benefits with prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

ERISALong-term disabilityBenefits terminationArbitrary and capricious standardConflict of interestMedical opinionUnreliable evidenceSummary judgmentOrthopaedic conditionsDiabetes
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lara v. Delta International Machinery Corp.

This memorandum decision addresses a product liability action filed by Alonso and Elizabeth Lara against Delta International Machinery Corp. following Alonso Lara's hand injury from a Delta table saw. The court granted Delta's motion to preclude the Plaintiffs' expert, Stanley H. Fein, finding his design defect opinions unreliable due to a lack of testing and speculative methodology. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' design defect claim was dismissed for lack of admissible expert testimony. However, the court denied summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim, acknowledging a genuine dispute regarding whether adequate warnings could have been conveyed to Lara by third parties despite his inability to read English. Additionally, claims for breach of express warranty, manufacturing defect, and loss of services were deemed abandoned, and the breach of implied warranty claim was dismissed as time-barred.

Products LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardRule 702Table Saw AccidentIndustrial SafetyMechanical Engineering
References
128
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2000

Gallagher v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Michael Gallagher, a member of IBEW Local 43, sued the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), its President J.J. Barry, IBEW Local 43, and several electrical contractors, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation. He claimed violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Executive Law § 296. The International defendants (IBEW and J.J. Barry) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name them in his administrative charges with the EEOC and NYSDHR, and that the claims were time-barred. The court granted the motion, finding that the "identity of interest" exception did not apply, thereby barring the ADEA claim against the International defendants. Additionally, the court ruled that Gallagher's state law claims were also time-barred due to failure to file within the statutory limits against the International defendants.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionsCollective BargainingHiring HallEEOCNYSDHRStatute of LimitationsJudgment on the PleadingsIdentity of Interest
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 13,619 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