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
May 21, 1996

Fair v. 431 Fifth Avenue Associates

The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied summary judgment motions by Flushing Ironworks Corp. and Practical Construction Ltd., seeking to dismiss personal injury claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). On appeal, the order was affirmed. The appellate court found issues of fact regarding Flushing Ironworks Corp.'s control of the work site under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. Additionally, questions of fact existed regarding a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) related to a steel beam hoisting incident and 12 NYCRR 23-2.3 (a), where the load may have been released prematurely.

personal injuryLabor Lawsummary judgmentwork site controlcommon-law negligencehoisting accidentsteel beamIndustrial Codeappellate reviewfactual issues
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04692 [219 AD3d 1617]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

Matter of Balbuena v. Rocco & Son Ironwork Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the State Insurance Fund's (SIF) counsel, The Law Offices of Melissa A. Day, PLLC, against a monetary penalty of $1,000 assessed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board had imposed the penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii) for continuing proceedings without reasonable grounds, specifically regarding improper service of the claimant's application for review due to an incorrect address. SIF's counsel argued that the Brooklyn address used was listed in the Board's file and claimant's medical records. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that substantial evidence did not support the Board's finding that SIF's counsel offered no reasonable basis for attempting service at the Brooklyn address. Consequently, the decision was modified to reverse the penalty against SIF's counsel, and as modified, affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAttorney PenaltyImproper ServiceReasonable GroundsState Insurance FundWorkers' Compensation BoardDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2001

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 580

Union members Iran Bennett, Charles Brown, Leroy Pratt, and Angel Vasquez moved to hold Local 580 in contempt for non-compliance with a 1978 consent judgment and subsequent court orders regarding discriminatory practices and an affirmative action program. Local 580 cross-moved to dismiss the motion, citing lack of standing, insufficiency of pleading, and failure to exhaust contractual remedies. The court granted the motion to intervene for Bennett, Brown, Pratt, and Vasquez, finding they had standing under Rule 24 or Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that their claims were timely. The court dismissed Trancoso's motion to intervene without prejudice, as his claim did not allege discrimination against Local 580. Local 580's cross-motion to dismiss was denied, with the court finding the union members' allegations sufficient and the back pay order not extinguishing rights to individual relief for post-1991 discrimination.

DiscriminationContemptConsent Judgment EnforcementIntervention (Rule 24)Third-Party Beneficiary (Rule 71)Affirmative ActionApprenticeship ProgramsHiring Hall PracticesRacial Discrimination in EmploymentFederal Civil Procedure
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. Securities Litigation

This decision addresses competing motions for lead plaintiff appointment in a consolidated securities class action against Bausch & Lomb, Inc., alleging securities fraud violations. The court evaluated the financial interest of the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit and the Structural Ironworkers Fund. The Detroit Police & Fire Group was deemed a 'net gainer' and 'net seller' of Bausch & Lomb securities during the class period, rendering them unsuitable as lead plaintiff due to potential unique defenses. The Structural Ironworkers Fund was found to have the largest financial interest and satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule 23 for class representation. Consequently, the court granted the Structural Ironworkers Fund's motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and approved Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman and Robbins LLP as lead counsel.

Securities Class ActionLead PlaintiffPSLRAClass Action LitigationFinancial Interest TestRule 23 RequirementsLead Counsel ApprovalNet GainerNet SellerBausch & Lomb
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No. 6, AFL-CIO v. State

The petitioners, unions representing ironworkers, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the New York State Commissioner of Labor. The dispute stemmed from public works contracts where Cortland Glass Company, Inc. and its subcontractor, Warren Wheeler T/A W. Wheeler Construction, paid workers as glaziers instead of the higher prevailing wages for ironworkers. While the State Bureau of Public Works initially found underpayment, a Hearing Officer and the Commissioner ultimately concluded that the work was properly classified as glaziers' work. The Appellate Division dismissed the petitioners' challenge, finding they lacked both statutory standing under Labor Law § 220 (8), as they were not parties to the administrative hearing, and common-law standing. The Court determined that the petitioners failed to demonstrate an individualized harm to any union member, which is required to establish standing on behalf of a union.

StandingCPLR Article 78Labor Law § 220Prevailing WagePublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersUnion GrievanceAdministrative ReviewJudicial Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allied Railing Corp. v. Shopmen's Local Union 455

The plaintiff, Allied Railing Corporation, initiated an action under the Labor Management Relations Act seeking a declaratory judgment against Shopmen’s Local Union # 455. The core of the dispute revolved around the Company's alleged failure to make severance payments following the termination of their collective bargaining agreement on June 30, 1975, and the subsequent cessation of the Company's operations. The Union demanded arbitration, but the Company sought a stay, contending that the duty to arbitrate did not survive the agreement's expiration. The court, referencing established precedent, affirmed that the obligation to arbitrate is purely contractual and does not persist beyond the agreement's term unless explicitly stipulated. Consequently, the court dismissed the Union's cross-petition to compel arbitration and granted the Company's request for a declaration that it had no ongoing obligation to arbitrate such post-termination grievances.

Labour disputeCollective bargainingArbitration agreementSeverance benefitsContract terminationDeclaratory judgment actionLMRA Section 301US Arbitration ActDuty to arbitratePost-expiration rights
References
13
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1990

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 580

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce subpoenas against entities related to defendants Local 580 and AJEF to uncover their true financial condition. The defendants claimed financial impossibility in complying with a consent judgment regarding discrimination. After a Special Master's initial denial of discovery for certain years was overturned by the court, the defendants and non-parties moved to vacate the Special Master's revised order and dismiss EEOC's appeal, citing procedural irregularities. The court denied their motion, affirming the relevance of the financial records and rejecting their procedural arguments, as well as denying a request for interlocutory appeal certification and a stay of production.

Employment DiscriminationContempt of CourtConsent Judgment EnforcementDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Duces TecumSpecial Master AuthorityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureInterlocutory AppealUnion FinanceApprenticeship Programs
References
7
Case No. 535808
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Romero Balbuena

The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) assessed a $1,000 penalty against counsel for the State Insurance Fund (SIF) for continuing proceedings without reasonable grounds, specifically for improper service of a Board review application on claimant Romero Balbuena. SIF's counsel appealed this penalty. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that SIF's counsel lacked a reasonable basis for attempting service at a Brooklyn address instead of the Bronx address listed in the Board's file. The Court found that SIF's counsel had a reasonable argument, as the Brooklyn address was in the Board's file on the application date and in claimant's medical records. Consequently, the Court modified the Board's decision by reversing the penalty assessed against SIF's counsel, while affirming the decision as so modified.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney PenaltyImproper ServiceBoard ReviewReconsiderationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewState Insurance FundCounsel FeesAdministrative Procedures
References
6
Case No. ADJ2241960 (MON 0252221) ADJ822337 (MON 0240998)
Regular
Sep 07, 2010

William Thure vs. COWELCO, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant who sustained industrial injuries as an ironworker. While an interim award for back, neck, and hearing injuries was stipulated, the applicant sought reconsideration for internal medicine claims. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's findings, which relied on expert medical opinion for apportionment of permanent disability. The Board found the medical expert's report to be substantial evidence and found no due process violation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryAbdominal HerniaHypertensionLeft Ventricular HypertrophyHeart FailureAtrial FibrillationDiabetesHeadachesIron Worker
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mescall v. Structure-Tone, Inc.

Plaintiff, an ironworker, was injured when a crane lifting a steel screen failed, causing the screen to fall approximately 20 feet and strike him. Defendant argued that the plaintiff was instructed to use steel cradles, but both the plaintiff and a coworker testified that no such cradles were available at the time of the accident. The court found that the defendant could not successfully argue that the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker or that his actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Citing previous cases, the court considered and ultimately rejected all of the defendant's other arguments as unavailing.

Ironworker injurycrane accidentfalling objectworker safetyrecalcitrant workersole proximate causeappellate decisionpremises liabilityconstruction accidentemployer liability
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 59 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