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

New York Typographical Union No. 6 v. AA Job Printing

The case concerns a petition by New York Typographical Union No. 6 to confirm arbitration awards against employers AA Job Printing Corp. and The Jewish Press, Inc., for violations of a collective bargaining agreement. The employers cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the awards were not final and that a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) matter preempted the action. The court noted the employers' procedural defaults but favored a decision on the merits. District Judge ROBERT L. CARTER ruled that the arbitration awards were final and definite, and the federal court's jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act was independent of the NLRB's jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the employers' unsupported claim of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, confirming the arbitration awards, and denied the employers' cross-motion.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRASummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionNLRB PreemptionDefault JudgmentProcedural RulesEmployer-Union Dispute
References
7
Case No. ADJ10666000
Regular
Jun 04, 2018

JUANA ALEMAN vs. CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The applicant, Juana Aleman, seeks reconsideration of a decision that denied her workers' compensation claim for cumulative injury. The appeals board granted reconsideration because the panel Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) report lacked substantial evidence. Specifically, the QME's description of the applicant's job duties was inconsistent with testimony from both the applicant and her supervisor. Consequently, the board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings, recommending the parties provide an accurate job description to the QME.

Petition for ReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)Substantial EvidenceJob Description InaccuracyCumulative InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Medical OpinionLabor CodeRestored to CalendarFindings Order Opinion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abele v. Amsterdam Housing Authority

The appellate court heard an appeal concerning a judgment from the Supreme Court, Montgomery County. The judgment had granted petitioners' request to stop compensation payments to respondent Gill, whose employment classification was disputed. The primary legal issue revolved around whether Gill's position qualified as exempt under Civil Service Law § 41, distinguishing between an 'executive director' (exempt) and a 'housing manager' (competitive). Special Term ruled that Gill's duties aligned with a 'housing manager,' despite a lack of detailed job descriptions in the record. The appellate court found this factual determination unsupported by the evidence. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was sent back to Special Term to properly classify the position based on a thorough review of job specifications.

Civil Service LawPublic Housing LawExempt PositionCompetitive PositionHousing ManagerExecutive DirectorPosition ClassificationJudicial ReviewRemittalInjunction
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engelman v. Girl Scouts-Indian Hills Council, Inc.

Plaintiff, a long-term employee, was terminated by the Girl Scouts-Indian Hills Council, Inc. and its executive director, Denise Newvine, after sustaining a permanent partial disability. Prior to termination, his job description was altered to include heavy lifting, and his assistant's hours were reduced. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination, and later applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was partially denied by the Supreme Court, allowing the disability discrimination claim to proceed. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that plaintiff presented a prima facie case of discrimination. The court highlighted outstanding questions of fact regarding reasonable accommodations and the consistency of plaintiff's SSDI application with his ability to perform job duties, precluding summary judgment.

Disability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentAppealHuman Rights LawAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationSocial Security Disability InsuranceEmployment TerminationPrima Facie CaseBroome County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Uto v. Job Site Services Inc.

Plaintiffs Paulino Uto, Jose Edwin Lopez, and Jose Aas, former employees of Job Site Services Inc. (JSS), filed a collective action against JSS and its owner, John O'Shea. They allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, claiming unpaid overtime, partial payment for hours worked, and unpaid minimum wage. The plaintiffs sought a protective order against defendants' discovery requests for social security numbers and income tax returns, arguing irrelevance and potential prejudice regarding their immigration status. Defendants contended the information was necessary for an "unclean hands" defense, implying the plaintiffs were involved in a tax evasion scheme. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling that immigration status and social security numbers are generally undiscoverable in FLSA cases due to irrelevance and the risk of intimidation or deportation. Furthermore, the court determined that tax returns were not relevant and lacked a compelling need for disclosure, and the "unclean hands" defense was inapplicable as the plaintiffs' claims were legal, not equitable.

Protective OrderDiscovery DisputeImmigration StatusFair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawUnclean Hands DefenseSocial Security NumbersIncome Tax ReturnsWage and Hour
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2001

CSEA Local 1000 v. County of Dutchess

The case involves an Article 78 proceeding challenging the County of Dutchess's reclassification of Social Welfare Worker II job duties and seeking an injunction against out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, granted the petition, and this judgment was affirmed on appeal. The court found that the reclassification was not final and binding due to the County's failure to notify affected employees, thus precluding a statute of limitations defense. Additionally, it was determined that the petitioner union had exhausted its contractual remedies, making the proceeding ripe for judicial review.

CPLR Article 78Job ReclassificationOut-of-title WorkStatute of LimitationsExhaustion of RemediesPublic Sector UnionAppellate ReviewDutchess CountyMunicipal LawAdministrative Law
References
1
Case No. STK 0192198, STK 0192199(M)
Regular
Mar 27, 2008

DAVID FONSECA vs. ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and removal, rescinding the finding of no cumulative trauma injury and amending the finding regarding the applicable rating schedule for a 1992 knee injury. The case is returned to the trial level for further development of the record on cumulative trauma, permanent disability, and apportionment. Medical evaluators should be provided with the applicant's deposition transcript and a job description.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-InsuredTristar Risk ManagementSedgwick Claims ManagementRemovalReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersSchedule for Rating Permanent DisabilitiesCumulative Trauma InjuryFuture Medical Treatment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2015

Gesualdi v. Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees and Fiduciaries of various Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training, and Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Funds, initiated an action against Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc. to recover unpaid liabilities and contributions. This action arose from two audits that identified delinquent contributions and the defendant's complete withdrawal from the Funds. Following Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.'s default, the Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke recommended granting the motion and awarding specific damages. District Judge Spatt subsequently adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, granting the default judgment and ordering damages totaling $156,898.74, along with daily interest, liquidated damages, audit fees, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Default JudgmentERISAUnpaid ContributionsWithdrawal LiabilityEmployee BenefitsMulti-employer PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementPrejudgment InterestLiquidated Damages
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
Case No. ADJ10601655
Regular
Oct 15, 2018

ERNESTO ALDRETE vs. COUNTY OF VENTURA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior Findings and Order, and returned the case to the judge for further proceedings. The Board found that the medical opinions in the record were not substantial evidence because they lacked accurate descriptions of the applicant's job duties during the relevant periods of alleged injury. The Board determined that the record needed further development, specifically by obtaining supplemental reports from the physicians addressing the applicant's work activities and their contribution to his condition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardErnesto AldreteCounty of VenturaYork Risk Services GroupPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCumulative InjuryArising Out of and Occurring in the Course of EmploymentPrimary Treating Physician
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,026 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