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. 2020 NY Slip Op 03157
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Burrell Orchards, Inc.

The case involves Paulette Jones, widow of Roy Jones, appealing a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Roy Jones suffered a work injury in 1996, resulting in permanent total disability, with benefits paid until his death in 2017. Paulette Jones filed a death benefits claim and sought an upward adjustment to the average weekly wage and reimbursement for home health care services provided to her late husband. The Board denied these requests, citing the doctrine of laches. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision regarding laches, finding the delay in asserting rights was explained by the decedent's lack of representation and conflicting wage evidence. The court concluded that the Board's application of laches was improper, modifying the decision and granting the motion to reopen the injury claim.

Workers' Compensation LawLaches DoctrineAverage Weekly Wage ModificationDeath BenefitsReopening ClaimPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewHome Health Care ReimbursementSpinal Cord InjuryEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Jones

This case addresses a motion by the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Defendant Jones. Jones was initially sued by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (H&H) for $2,370, representing a six-day hospital stay. Jones then sought indemnification from the Commissioner, asserting eligibility for Medicaid and that an H&H-submitted claim for benefits was not honored. The Commissioner sought dismissal on grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and constituted an impermissible collateral attack. The court denied the motion, finding it unclear that the city agency played no role in benefit administration, citing that the Statute of Limitations for indemnification runs from when the party is compelled to pay, and noting the lack of evidence that Jones received notice of a claim denial.

MedicaidIndemnificationThird-Party ActionMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSocial ServicesHospital BillingGovernment LiabilityHealthcare CostsCity Agency
References
3
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

Jones v. Shalala

Plaintiff Glenn Jones challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Jones, who sustained a back injury in 1988, had his application for benefits denied initially and on reconsideration, a decision upheld by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Appeals Council. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, focusing on the application of the treating physician rule and the determination of Jones's residual functional capacity for sedentary work. The court found that the ALJ properly considered contradictory medical evidence from consulting physicians and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Jones could perform sedentary work. Consequently, the court affirmed the Secretary's determination, denying Jones's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the defendant's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkBack InjuryMedical EvidenceALJ DecisionAffirmed DecisionFederal Court Action
References
8
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

Jones v. County of Suffolk

The plaintiffs, Marie Jones (administrator of Roy A. Jones, III's estate) and Roy A. Jones, Jr. (decedent's father), brought a civil rights action against the County of Suffolk and Pedro Jones. They alleged that the County violated decedent's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by failing to protect him, despite prior involvement with the family, including the removal of decedent's sister. The County moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the federal claims, finding that New York's child welfare laws do not create a protected liberty interest in removal or protection, and no 'special relationship' was formed between the County and the decedent. The Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Civil RightsDue ProcessChild ProtectionMotion to DismissState ActionCustodySpecial RelationshipFourteenth AmendmentChild AbuseGovernmental Aid
References
44
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
Showing 1-10 of 536 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