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

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

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
Dec 04, 1989

Longa v. 17 Battery Place North Associates

The Supreme Court of New York County affirmed an order that denied the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a previous order from June 24, 1985. The earlier order had granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to strike the defendant’s affirmative defense of workers’ compensation. Plaintiffs alleged that the judgment was obtained through fraudulent evidence, specifically a doctored workers' compensation form that misrepresented their employer. However, the court found insufficient proof of fraud to vacate the judgment, thus upholding the denial of the plaintiffs' motions.

Summary JudgmentFraudulent EvidenceWorkers' Compensation DefenseMotion to Set Aside JudgmentAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseCPLR 5015Insufficient ProofVacating JudgmentPrior Order
References
2
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2008

Rodriguez v. Port Authority

Decedent, a police officer for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, died in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. His minor son received New Jersey workers' compensation death benefits. The claimant, decedent's domestic partner and the son's mother, sought New York death benefits for herself. She was awarded benefits commencing June 1, 2007, but the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board granted the employer a credit for the New Jersey payments made to the claimant on her son's behalf, denying her claim for the period between September 11, 2001, and June 1, 2007. The claimant appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the employer's entitlement to the credit, preventing an impermissible double recovery. However, the court modified the decision regarding the commencement date of the claimant's New York benefits, finding that New Jersey payments ended on February 17, 2007, not June 1, 2007, and remitted the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this finding.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath BenefitsSeptember 11 AttacksEmployer CreditDouble Recovery PrincipleDomestic Partner StatusInter-jurisdictional BenefitsRemandAppellate ReviewSelf-insured Employer
References
1
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
Case No. ADJ8987075
Regular
Nov 21, 2014

MAGALI PENA vs. DEL MAR SEAFOODS, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the applicant's temporary disability period. The Board amended the prior finding, establishing the temporary disability for the applicant's knee injury from June 19, 2013, through April 17, 2014. This amendment adjusted the end date of temporary disability from April 27, 2014, to April 17, 2014. The Board otherwise affirmed the original Amended Findings and Award.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAmended Findings and AwardPermanent and StationaryMedical OpinionReport and Recommendation
References
0
Case No. ADJ14466153
Regular
Oct 21, 2025

JESSE CRUZ vs. BRISTOL INDUSTRIES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Applicant Jesse Cruz sought reconsideration of a WCJ's June 3, 2022 Findings and Order (F&O), which found he did not sustain an industrial injury to his back, hips, legs, and feet while employed by Bristol Industries on June 17, 2020. The Appeals Board previously granted reconsideration to further study the case and found the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely filed. Citing insufficient medical evidence on the issue of injury and a lack of clear analysis in the WCJ's credibility determination, the Board rescinded the F&O and remanded the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, including obtaining expert medical opinion on the injury and a more detailed credibility analysis by the WCJ.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationAdjudication NumberFindings and OrderWCJReconsiderationFurther ProceedingsBack PainPeripheral NeuropathyLumbar MRI
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,100 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