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. ADJ463252 (VNO 0529697) ADJ240577 (VNO 0529698)
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

SHARON MARR vs. JBL PRO MANUFACTURING, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sharon Marr's petition for removal against JBL Pro Manufacturing and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. The dismissal was primarily based on the petition not being timely-filed. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits, adopting the reasons stated by the administrative law judge.

Petition for RemovalTimely-filedWCJ ReportDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ463252ADJ240577JBL PRO MANUFACTURINGTRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICAFrank M. Brass
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laniok v. Advisory Committee of the Brainerd Manufacturing Co. Pension Plan

Plaintiff Peter Laniok sued his former employer, Brainerd Manufacturing Company, under ERISA for denying him pension benefits. Laniok argued the waiver he signed, which foreclosed his participation in the company's pension plan due to his age, was void against public policy and violated ERISA's age discrimination provisions and the ADEA. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the waiver was valid. The court determined that ERISA does not prohibit an employee from knowingly and voluntarily waiving pension rights and found no violation of ERISA's age discrimination provision or ADEA. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Brainerd Manufacturing Company.

ERISAPension BenefitsWaiverAge DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentEmployee RightsRetirement PlanDefined Benefit PlanPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp.

Plaintiff was injured at a construction site when, while working, he was struck in the back by an uninstalled door frame. He commenced an action against Wood-Pro, the company hired to install the door frames, and Summerville, the manufacturer of the door frame. The jury found no negligence on the part of Wood-Pro. The court also properly granted Summerville’s motion to dismiss the action as against it, as there was no evidence of negligence or violation of duty. Plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) against both defendants were also found unavailing, as neither had authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work, and they were not owners or general contractors.

Construction InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityLabor LawAppellate ReviewJury VerdictComparative FaultMotion to DismissStatutory DutyContractual Duty
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mera v. Adelphi Manufacturing Co.

Raphael Mera, an employee of Adelphi Manufacturing Co., Inc., was injured while operating a power press and accepted workers' compensation benefits. Mera and his wife subsequently sued Adelphi, alleging intentional harm by instructing employees to operate presses with removed safety guards. Adelphi moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was barred by workers' compensation law. The Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the order was reversed. The court held that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for employee injuries, and by accepting benefits, Mera forfeited his right to a common-law tort action. The court also found the allegations insufficient to meet the exception for intentional harm, and the claim was further barred by res judicata.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional Tort ExceptionRes JudicataAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury LitigationEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissOccupational InjuryNew York Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1990

Salvatore D'Amico v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

Salvatore D'Amico, a window-washer, sued for injuries after falling from a ladder at 4 New York Plaza. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from various parties. This appellate court modified that order, granting partial summary judgment to D'Amico against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. (building owner) and Cross and Brown Company (managing agent) under Labor Law §240(1), which imposes absolute liability for failing to provide adequate safety devices. The court found that the ladder's cracking established a prima facie case. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for MHT and Cross and Brown's indemnification claims against Allied Maintenance Corp. (D'Amico's employer), stating that Allied's liability for contribution would depend on the jury's apportionment of fault and the negligence of MHT and Cross and Brown.

Ladder AccidentSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityIndemnificationPremises LiabilityLabor Law §240(1)Window Washer InjuryWorker SafetyAppellate ReviewContributory Negligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

B. C. Manufacturing Co. v. Reiff

The case concerns an injunction sought by B. C. Manufacturing Co. Inc., a nonunion dress contractor, against Local 143 of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and its manager, Louis Reiff, to stop picketing of its Mount Vernon, N.Y., factory. The picketing began after a general strike in March 1958, initially seeking a union agreement and later urging employees to join the union. The court found evidence of abusive and disorderly conduct during the picketing, including massing, blocking ingress/egress, pushing, and verbal abuse. However, the court denied a general injunction against all peaceful picketing, ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to federal preemption under the Taft-Hartley Act, as the plaintiff's interstate commerce activities fall under NLRB's exclusive purview. Instead, a limited injunction was granted, restricting the number of pickets, prohibiting interference with employees, and forbidding abusive language.

Labor DisputePicketingInjunctionTaft-Hartley ActNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Interstate CommerceUnfair Labor PracticeUnionizationStranger PicketingCoercion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perth Amboy Drydock Co. v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance

This case concerns the interpretation of an insurance policy issued to Perth Amboy Drydock Co. by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance. The policy provided workmen's compensation and employer's liability coverage, primarily for 'shipwright work' employees. The core dispute revolved around an endorsement that expanded liability limits. While the endorsement's heading mentioned 'Masters or Members of the Crews of Vessels', a typewritten addendum at its foot broadened its application to 'Shipwright Work and operation of Tugboats'. The court affirmed the order and judgment, holding that the typewritten statement should prevail, resolving any ambiguity in favor of the insured. A dissenting opinion argued against this interpretation, asserting that the language was clear and restricted to maritime employees.

Insurance PolicyWorkmen's CompensationEmployer's LiabilityPolicy EndorsementContract InterpretationAmbiguityShipwright WorkMaritime LawAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 1998

Nos v. Greenpoint Manufacturing & Design Center Local Development Corp.

Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center Local Development Corporation, the owner and lessor of a property, appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification against S & G Woodworking, Inc. A worker employed by S & G was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder on Greenpoint's premises. The appellate court found no evidence that Greenpoint supervised or controlled the plaintiff's work, thus establishing its right to indemnification from S & G. The order was reversed, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and Greenpoint was deemed entitled to recover legal expenses incurred in defending the plaintiff's claims.

Personal InjuryCommon-law indemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorker InjuryPremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityLessor LiabilityThird-party actionLegal Expenses
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 898 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