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

Patterson-Stevens, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17

Patterson-Stevens (plaintiff) sought to vacate a July 24, 1995 judgment and amend its complaint against Local 17 (defendant). The original complaint sought an injunction to prevent arbitration of a grievance initiated by Local 17, which Patterson argued was untimely under a six-month statute of limitations. The court initially dismissed the case, lacking jurisdiction to issue an injunction. Patterson-Stevens then moved to vacate, arguing the complaint implicitly stated a claim for declaratory judgment. The court denied the motion, finding no clear error of law or manifest injustice in its prior decision. Furthermore, the proposed amendment for declaratory relief was deemed futile, as there was no legal precedent supporting a statute of limitations for grievance submission, unlike federal court actions.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrationStatute of LimitationsFederal JurisdictionInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to Vacate JudgmentMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17 v. Union Concrete & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. 97 Civ. 7455(SS)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1998

Schepis v. LOCAL UNION NO. 17, UNITED BROTH.

The plaintiff, Benedetto Schepis, a former union official, sought reimbursement of legal defense costs from Local Union No. 17 and District Council of New York City after his criminal conviction was overturned. The Union removed the case from New York State Supreme Court to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the LMRDA and LMRA. Schepis moved to remand the action, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion to remand, finding no federal cause of action for reimbursement under the LMRDA or LMRA, and explicitly noting that LMRDA preserves state law claims. The court also awarded Schepis costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred due to the improper removal.

Removal jurisdictionFederal questionLabor-Management Disclosure and Reporting ActLabor Management Relations ActUnion fiduciary dutiesState law claimsWell-pleaded complaint ruleComplete preemptionAttorney's feesRemand
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17 v. Swank Associated Co.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 17, initiated an action to compel arbitration against Swank Associated Company, Inc., following a labor grievance. Swank removed the case to federal court and filed a third-party action against Local 210, arguing the matter constituted a jurisdictional dispute not subject to arbitration. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Schroeder, examined the collective bargaining agreement to determine the arbitrability of the dispute. It concluded that while an arbitrator could determine if the issue was a jurisdictional dispute, they could not resolve it on the merits if it was found to be jurisdictional. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the grievance was directed to arbitration solely to ascertain whether it constituted a jurisdictional dispute under the agreement.

Labor LawArbitration AgreementJurisdictional DisputesCollective BargainingLabor Management Relations ActFederal CourtPleadings MotionContract InterpretationArbitrabilityUnion Rights
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 1995

International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17 v. Lexo

Local 17 of the International Union of Operating Engineers ('Local 17') filed an action against John Lexo, a member of IUOE Local 463, seeking to collect a $5,000 fine. The fine was imposed by Local 17 after Lexo was found guilty of working in its jurisdiction without clearance, a violation of the IUOE constitution and Local 17 by-laws. Local 17 moved for summary judgment under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The court denied the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3), concluding that Section 301(a) does not grant federal jurisdiction for a local union to sue an individual member of another local to enforce a monetary fine.

Labor Management Relations ActSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentUnion ConstitutionUnion FinesIntra-union DisputesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)Collective Bargaining AgreementLabor Union LitigationInter-union Relations
References
13
Case No. ADJ6659926 ADJ6659223
Regular
Jan 06, 2012

MICHELLE JIMENEZ vs. DENCO SALES COMPANY, ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Michelle Jimenez's claim for additional temporary disability benefits for lumbar spine injuries sustained from a specific injury in July 2007 and a cumulative trauma injury ending in July 2008. The Appeals Board found that while the 2007 injury's temporary disability indemnity limit under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) expired in August 2009, the applicant is entitled to remaining temporary disability under section 4656(c)(2) for the 2008 cumulative trauma injury. Because the applicant had only received 69 weeks of temporary disability for the cumulative trauma injury and is entitled to 104 weeks within five years of the injury date, she is awarded an additional 35 weeks of temporary disability indemnity prior to July 17, 2013.

Labor Code section 4656temporary disability indemnityaggregate disability paymentscompensable weeksperiod of two yearsperiod of five yearsdate of commencementdate of injurycumulative trauma injuryspecific injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1980

Claim of Mastrogiovanni v. Underhill

The Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, filed April 17, 1980, concerned a claimant who sustained two back injuries in 1975 while working as a labor foreman. The Board, relying on medical evidence from Doctors Kessler and Hochberg, apportioned responsibility for the claimant's overall disability: 25% to the July 3, 1975 accident and 75% to the October 7, 1975 accident. It further determined that the July 3, 1975 accident was not subject to Workers’ Compensation Law section 15-8d, as it did not materially and substantially worsen any prior permanent condition. Conversely, the October 7, 1975 accident was deemed subject to section 15-8d due to its material and substantial worsening of the claimant's condition. The employer and carrier appealed, challenging the apportionment and seeking reimbursement under section 15-8d for the July 3, 1975 accident, contending a preexisting condition should bear a portion of the disability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support its findings.

ApportionmentWorkers' CompensationBack InjuryDisabilityPreexisting ConditionSection 15-8dMedical EvidenceAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceBoard Panel
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. 17 Murray Street Corp.

This personal injury action concerns alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 200, and 241(6). Defendant BDB Development Corp. moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims, asserting that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 barred the claims. The Workers' Compensation Board had previously determined that BDB was the plaintiff's employer and the injuries were work-related, thus barring the plaintiff's direct claim against BDB. The court also considered codefendant 17 Murray Street Corporation's cross-claim for indemnification against BDB. Despite arguments regarding collateral estoppel, the court ruled that Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically its 1996 amendment, extinguished BDB's common-law indemnification obligation to 17 Murray Street because the plaintiff did not sustain a "grave injury." Consequently, BDB's motion was granted, dismissing the complaint against BDB and the cross-claim for indemnification.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryCollateral EstoppelEmployer Liability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,183 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