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. 01-17-0002-1912
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 ("Local 3") sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an arbitration initiated by defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The arbitration concerns a work stoppage and alleged violation of a no-strike clause. The court denied Local 3's motion, ruling that Local 3 failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because it chose not to participate in the arbitration and could later challenge any adverse arbitral award in court. The decision emphasized that the monetary cost of arbitration alone does not constitute irreparable injury and highlighted the importance of demonstrating actual harm.

Arbitration StayPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseIrreparable HarmArbitrabilityFederal Court ProcedureJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between Local 3 and Charter Communications regarding a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The core issue is whether Local 3 members were bound by a CBA provision requiring arbitration of disputes during a strike in March 2017. The court found that Local 3's conduct, including signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), ratifying it, accepting improved wages and benefits, and utilizing grievance and arbitration procedures for almost two years, manifested an intent to be bound by the no-strike and arbitration provisions. Despite previous NLRB decisions regarding the inclusion of riders in the CBA, the District Court determined that the parties' actions indicated a binding agreement on the no-strike and grievance terms. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Charter, and arbitration was ordered.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActContract LawIntent to be BoundUnion DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This motion concerns plaintiffs' request to hold Harry VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena. The underlying action involves accusations of a conspiracy to prevent the sale of electrical products. During proceedings before a Special Master, VanArsdale, Jr., as business manager of the Union, refused to produce a complete file of 'Allied Union News' issues despite a validly issued subpoena duces tecum. The court acknowledges the refusal was not contumacious but legally incorrect. Consequently, the court finds both VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3 in contempt and orders the production of the requested documents, suspending punishment and costs contingent on their compliance.

Contempt of CourtSubpoena Duces TecumLabor UnionDiscoveryDocument ProductionSpecial MasterConspiracyInterstate CommerceRefusal to ComplyCourt Order
References
1
Case No. ADJ584782 AHM 0114457
Regular
Apr 18, 2011

James Green vs. Ralph's Grocery Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine if Ralph's Grocery Company's appeal of a Rehabilitation Unit order was timely. The Board found the appeal was timely because the defendant received the order on July 3, 2008, and filed their appeal on July 10, 2008. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior order, finding Ralph's Grocery Company is not liable for vocational rehabilitation services or maintenance allowance. This decision is based on the applicant's right to such benefits expiring on January 1, 2009.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRalph's Grocery CompanyPermissibly Self-InsuredVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Vocational Rehabilitation ServicesRehabilitation Unit (RU)Decision and Order (D&O)LachesLabor Code section 139.5Timeliness of Appeal
References
7
Case No. ADJ2979319 (LAO 0864585)
Regular
Nov 21, 2008

PETRA GARCIA vs. BANKERS WEST FUNDING CORPORATION, NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant's entitlement to temporary disability indemnity (TDI) following a right upper extremity injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of an award, arguing TDI should cease earlier based on a QME's opinion and statutory limits. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the award to find TDI payable from January 3, 2006, through September 2, 2008, and continuing, while establishing the "date of commencement" for the two-year TDI limit as July 1, 2008, the date of first payment. The Board found the treating physician's opinion more persuasive than the QME's regarding the duration of temporary disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetra GarciaBankers West Funding CorporationNational Liability and Fire Insurance CompanyADJ2979319ReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Ernest Washington M.D.
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Alamin v. Down Town Taxi, Inc.

Claimant, a taxi driver, sustained neck and back injuries in a February 2008 work-related motor vehicle accident. His workers' compensation claim was established. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits from February 2008 to October 2009, finding a moderate causally related disability after November 2008. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board later rescinded awards after November 20, 2008, ruling that no further causally related disability existed from that date. Claimant's subsequent request for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The current court dismissed the appeals from the WCLJ's January 2013 decision and the Board's January 2014 decision due to procedural irregularities (direct appeal from WCLJ and untimely filing of notice of appeal). The court affirmed the Board’s March 2014 decision denying reconsideration, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily, as the claimant failed to present new evidence or demonstrate a material change in condition.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureDismissal of AppealReconsideration DenialCausally Related DisabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentIndependent Medical ExaminationProcedural BarAbuse of DiscretionTimeliness of Appeal
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07834 [166 AD3d 468]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

Charter Communications, Inc. v. Local Union No. 3

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's orders. The Supreme Court had denied Charter Communications, Inc.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against Local Union No. 3's picketing campaign and its motion to compel expedited discovery. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division found that the lower court properly declined to make factual findings required for injunctive relief under Labor Law § 807 and correctly dismissed common-law tort claims due to a failure to plead that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions.

Preliminary InjunctionPermanent InjunctionLabor DisputePicketingTrespassingCommon-Law TortUnion LiabilityExpedited DiscoveryAppellate ReviewDismissal of Complaint
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Local Union No. 3 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The court addresses demurrers to three indictments against Local Union No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for alleged violations of the Sherman Act. The indictments claim the union conspired to prevent the installation of out-of-state electrical equipment in New York City, thereby diverting work to local manufacturers and increasing costs. Defendants argued that the Sherman Act does not apply to labor unions and that their actions constituted a 'labor dispute' immune from antitrust laws. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the alleged conspiracy's effect on market prices and free competition fell within the scope of the Sherman Act, and that the conduct did not constitute a legitimate 'labor dispute.' Consequently, the court overruled the demurrers.

Sherman ActLabor UnionsAntitrust LawInterstate CommerceRestraint of TradeDemurrersIndictmentsElectrical IndustrySecondary BoycottPrice Fixing
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Electrical Contractors' Ass'n v. Local Union No. 3 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This decision addresses an application filed by Local Union No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a defendant in the original action. The union sought to quash the summons and service of other legal papers, asserting misnomer and improper service. The court noted that under Section 13 of the General Associations Law, actions against unincorporated associations must be brought against the president or treasurer, and service must be made upon these officers. Despite the plaintiff naming the union's president and treasurer in its papers, service on the local union was made on its general counsel and its financial secretary individually, not its president or treasurer. The court found this service insufficient to establish jurisdiction over the local union and, consequently, granted the motion to quash the service.

JurisdictionService of ProcessUnincorporated AssociationMisnomerGeneral Associations LawCivil Practice ActMotion to QuashLabour UnionStatutory InterpretationProcedural Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falkowski v. 81 & 3 of Watertown, Inc.

This case involves an appeal regarding contractual indemnification and common-law contribution/indemnification. Third-party defendant Kulback’s & Associates, Inc. (Kulback’s) appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendant-third-party plaintiff 81 and 3 of Watertown, Inc.’s (81 and 3) cross-motion for summary judgment on contractual indemnification. The court affirmed, finding that Kulback’s had admitted to entering into a construction contract with 81 and 3 and that Innovative General Contractor, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of 81 and 3, acted on its behalf. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Kulback’s motion to dismiss the common-law contribution and indemnification claim, as Kulback’s failed to establish that the plaintiff did not sustain a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintJudicial AdmissionsWholly Owned SubsidiaryCommon-Law ContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewPleadings
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,529 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