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

In Re the Arbitration Between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 & Village of Johnson City

This case addresses whether a 'no-layoff' clause in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Village of Johnson City and its firefighter union was subject to arbitration. The Village abolished six firefighter positions citing budgetary necessity, leading the Johnson City Professional Fire Fighters, Local 921 IAFF, to file a grievance and seek to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed lower court decisions that had compelled arbitration. The court held that the no-layoff clause was not arbitrable because it failed to explicitly, unambiguously, and comprehensively protect against job abolition due to budgetary reasons. The term 'layoff' was deemed ambiguous and undefined within the CBA, rendering the dispute non-arbitrable on public policy grounds, thereby granting the Village's application to stay arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Layoff ClausePublic PolicyBudgetary StringenciesJob SecurityMunicipal EmploymentContract InterpretationUnion GrievanceFirefighters
References
5
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24048 [3 Misc 3d 347]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Johnson v. Hudson Riv. Constr. Co., Inc.

This case addresses motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Hudson River Construction Co., Inc., Albany Asphalt & Aggregates Corp., and Robert C. Higley. The plaintiff, Carlynann V. Johnson, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Warren D. Johnson, sought damages for the death of Warren D. Johnson, who was crushed by a truck at a construction site. Defendants argued that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 limited their liability to reckless conduct, eliminating a duty of care. The court denied the motions, holding that defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of duty to Johnson as an employee at a construction site and misapplied VTL § 1103, which does not apply to construction workers. The court also found that the defendants failed to establish that Johnson was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Summary Judgment MotionNegligence ActionConstruction Site FatalityWorkplace Safety DutyVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate Cause DisputeThird-Party LiabilityWrongful Death ClaimEmployer ResponsibilityHighway Construction Accident
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Astrue

Thomas Johnson, a pro se plaintiff, sued the Commissioner of Social Security after his application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was denied. The District Court, presided over by Judge Telesca, reviewed the ALJ's decision, which found Johnson not disabled despite acknowledging his 'severe' conditions. The court determined that the ALJ improperly evaluated Johnson's schizophrenia, finding it to be a 'listed impairment' under SSA regulations, fulfilling criteria for marked difficulties in social functioning, concentration, persistence, and pace. The court concluded that Johnson's schizophrenia was independently disabling, despite his substance abuse and his own testimony downplaying his mental health issues, and thus reversed the Commissioner's decision, granting judgment to Johnson and remanding the case for calculation of benefits.

SchizophreniaDisability BenefitsSocial Security ActMental ImpairmentResidual Functional CapacityALJ Decision ReviewAppeals CouncilDIBSSIParanoid Schizophrenia
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Kay

This opinion addresses a motion by Edward Kay, Secretary/Treasurer of Local 1199, to vacate an order issued by Special Master Eric Schmertz. The order directed Kay's faction to pay for Georgiana Johnson, President of Local 1199, to rent the Beacon Theatre for a general delegates meeting. This dispute is part of an ongoing power struggle between Johnson's and Kay's union factions. Kay challenged the Special Master's order on grounds of jurisdiction, standards for injunctive relief, and compliance with Rule 53. The court denied Kay's motion, affirming its jurisdiction based on federal labor law (LMRDA) and the prior involvement of the court. It also found that Johnson had demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits for injunctive relief, emphasizing the importance of communication rights within the union.

Union leadership disputeLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLMRDAIntra-union free speechPreliminary injunctionSpecial MasterUnion delegate assemblyExecutive Council powerCommunication rightsUnion constitutional dispute
References
5
Case No. 2016-3058 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2018

Johnson v. Hartford Ins. Co.

Hubert I. Johnson appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which denied his motion to vacate a prior order entered May 19, 2015. The May 19, 2015 order had granted Hartford Insurance Company's motion to vacate a default judgment against it and dismissed Johnson's complaint with prejudice, after Johnson failed to oppose the motion. Johnson's current action sought the same sum and was based on the same claim as a previous, discontinued action. The Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Johnson failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious cause of action. The court also noted that Johnson's current claim was precluded by res judicata, as it was identical to a claim already asserted and dismissed in a prior action.

Default JudgmentVacate OrderRes JudicataAppellate ReviewCivil CourtMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation ClaimPro Se AppellantStipulationPrior Action Dismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

Matter of Johnson (Commissioner of Labor)

Pamela Johnson appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which charged her with a recoverable overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits, Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC), and Lost Wage Assistance (LWA). Johnson, a banquet bartender, began receiving a union pension, fully funded by her base period employer, effective May 1, 2020, while concurrently collecting unemployment benefits. The Department of Labor subsequently reduced her weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero, effective July 6, 2020, pursuant to Labor Law § 600 (1), as her prorated weekly pension amount exceeded her weekly unemployment benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that the conditional payment of unemployment insurance benefits prior to verification is subject to review and recovery of an overpayment, even when the claimant is not at fault and has made appropriate disclosures. Therefore, Johnson was properly charged with recoverable overpayments for all categories of benefits received.

Unemployment BenefitsPension OffsetOverpayment RecoveryFederal Pandemic BenefitsCARES Act PaymentsLabor Law ApplicationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationAdministrative AppealUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board Decision
References
14
Case No. 01 Civ. 2835
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Eastchester Union Free School District

Oswald Johnson, a 69-year-old cleaner, sued the Eastchester Union Free School District for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after his job location and hours were changed. The school district moved for summary judgment, arguing Johnson failed to establish an adverse employment action or an inference of discrimination. The court found that mere inconvenience from a lateral transfer and shift change, without a reduction in wages or altered job responsibilities, does not constitute a materially adverse employment action. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence did not support an inference of age discrimination, as other employees of varying ages also experienced job assignment changes, and the decision-maker was also over 40. The court also found the mandatory physical examination, which revealed Johnson's cataracts, was job-related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the court granted summary judgment to the Eastchester Union Free School District, dismissing the complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionDisparate TreatmentADEALateral TransferShift ChangePhysical ExaminationPrima Facie Case
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2007

Johnson v. Ebidenergy, Inc.

This appellate case concerns two consolidated personal injury actions arising from an electrical accident. Plaintiffs David M. Johnson and George D. Johnson sustained burns when a fuse David was installing exploded. David was an employee of a subcontractor hired by Ebidenergy, Inc. to install metering equipment for Yonder Farms Fruit Distributors, LLC. George, who was an employee of AMS Contracting, was incidentally on site to retrieve paperwork. The court reviewed summary judgment motions, ultimately modifying the Supreme Court's order by dismissing certain third-party complaints and Labor Law causes of action, while affirming other aspects. The decision clarified the applicability of Labor Law provisions, particularly regarding 'altering' a building and contractor liability, and the employment status of George D. Johnson under the Labor Law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawStatutory InterpretationContractor LiabilityThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewElectrical AccidentWorkplace SafetyIndustrial Code
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tracey Road Equipment, Inc. v. Village of Johnson City

This case involves two appeals from orders and judgments of the Supreme Court in Broome County. Action No. 1 concerned Tracey Road Equipment, Inc.'s request for a declaratory judgment against the Village of Johnson City regarding insurance coverage for a street sweeper involved in an accident. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Johnson City, finding it not obligated to defend or indemnify Tracey Road, which was affirmed on appeal. Action No. 2 involved the Insurance Company of North America (INA) seeking a declaratory judgment against St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, contending St. Paul was a coinsurer for Johnson City in the same accident. The Supreme Court denied INA's motion, but the appellate court reversed, declaring INA and St. Paul to be coinsurers and obligating St. Paul to pay half of Johnson City's defense and indemnification costs.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentLease Agreement InterpretationCoinsuranceVehicle LiabilityAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnityMotor Vehicle AccidentInsurance Policy Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 07-CV-6149L
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2010

Johnson v. THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER

Plaintiffs Keith Johnson, M.D., and Laura Schmidt, R.N., filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital. They alleged defendants defrauded the government by submitting false claims for anesthesiology services under Medicare/Medicaid, claiming physician supervision when it was absent. Johnson also alleged retaliatory discharge for reporting violations, and Schmidt claimed retaliation for refusing to alter medical records. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead fraud with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Johnson cross-moved to amend the complaint to add claims of libel per se and prima facie tort against Dr. Lustik. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege that any fraudulent bills were actually presented to Medicare/Medicaid. The retaliation claims were also dismissed because the complaints were not made in furtherance of a qui tam action. Johnson's motion to amend was denied as frivolous and in bad faith. Defendants' request for sanctions was denied without prejudice.

False Claims ActQui TamMedicare FraudMedicaid FraudRetaliatory DischargePleading StandardsRule 9(b)Motion to DismissLeave to AmendLibel
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 543 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