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

VAW of America, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America

Plaintiff VAW of America, Inc. sued United Steelworkers of America to vacate an arbitrator's award. The arbitrator had found that VAW had just cause to discipline an employee, Ms. Krom, but modified her 40.5-hour suspension to 12 hours. VAW argued the arbitrator exceeded authority by modifying the discipline, claiming VAW had exclusive rights under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Union countered that the modification drew its essence from the CBA's 'just cause' provision, allowing the arbitrator to review the proportionality of the penalty. The court, citing precedent, ruled that the 'just cause' provision allowed the arbitrator to assess the reasonableness of the penalty, even without explicit language granting modification power. Consequently, the court denied VAW's motion to vacate and granted the Union's cross-motion to confirm the arbitrator's award.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJust Cause DisciplineArbitrator AuthorityJudicial Review of ArbitrationSummary Judgment MotionEmployee SuspensionInsubordinationContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Just Bagels Manufacturing, Inc. v. Mayorkas

Just Bagels Manufacturing, Inc. sought judicial review of a decision by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) denying an employment visa petition for Manuel Chimbaina Morocho. Just Bagels challenged CIS's determination that it lacked the ability to pay the "proffered wage" in 2001, arguing that depreciation deductions and bank balances should be considered differently, and that the 9/11 attacks made 2001 an aberrational year. The court upheld CIS's decision, finding that its treatment of depreciation was rational, its rejection of bank statements as insufficient evidence was within its discretion, and Just Bagels failed to provide sufficient evidence to warrant a "totality of circumstances" review. Consequently, CIS's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Just Bagels' cross-motion was denied, dismissing the complaint.

Immigration LawEmployment VisaAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentUnited States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesAbility to PayDepreciation ExpenseFinancial DocumentsLabor Certification
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2011

Town of Babylon v. Stacy Carson

The Town of Babylon challenged an arbitration award that reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on its employee, Stacy Carson, which involved restoring 10 days of pay and shortening her probation. The Town's petition to vacate the award was initially denied by the Supreme Court, which held the arbitrator had broad authority despite limitations in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). On appeal, the higher court reversed this judgment, finding the arbitrator exceeded his power because the CBA only permitted a remedy if 'just cause' for discipline was not found, and the arbitrator had, in fact, affirmed 'just cause'. Consequently, the arbitration award's modifications were vacated, and the original penalties were reinstated.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementDisciplinary ActionEmployee MisconductJudicial ReviewArbitrator AuthorityVacate AwardConfirm AwardCPLR Article 75Just Cause
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sines v. Opportunities For Broome, Inc.

Petitioner, a foreman, was dismissed from employment by a not-for-profit corporation in December 1987 for alleged misconduct, including sleeping on the job. After exhausting internal grievance procedures, which upheld the dismissal in September 1988, petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement and back pay. The court determined that an article 78 proceeding was appropriate against the not-for-profit corporation. Petitioner challenged the termination on procedural grounds and argued the finding of just cause was arbitrary and the penalty disproportionate. The court found no merit in petitioner's procedural claims and concluded that the finding of just cause was not arbitrary and capricious, and the penalty was not disproportionately harsh. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

CPLR Article 78Employment TerminationGrievance ProcedureNot-for-Profit CorporationArbitrary and CapriciousJust CauseWorkplace MisconductSleeping on JobFailure to SuperviseDue Process
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prendeville v. United States

This case involves a plaintiff suing the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained by John Prendeville at a VA Hospital, leading to paralysis. The defendants moved to dismiss the first cause of action, arguing that the plaintiff's complaint was untimely under the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations, claiming the cause of action accrued shortly after Prendeville's injury in September 1981. The court examined the accrual of a claim under the FTCA, which requires the plaintiff to discover both the injury and its cause. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was a factual dispute regarding when the plaintiff or Prendeville's family became aware of the alleged cause of the injury, potentially due to misleading statements from medical personnel.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatute of LimitationsMedical MalpracticeAccrual of ClaimSummary Judgment MotionSpinal Cord InjuryVA Hospital NegligenceWrongful Death ClaimIntubation ComplicationsDiscovery Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Howe v. New York State Department of Corrections

The case involves an appeal by a claimant's employer and its workers' compensation insurance carrier challenging a $500 penalty imposed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board found that the carrier interposed objections to the claimant's benefits claim without just cause. The appellate court affirmed the penalty, holding that "just cause" under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (c) requires an objective rational basis and relevant, objective, and reasonable evidence to support controverting a claim. A subjective good-faith belief alone is insufficient. The court found that despite opportunities, the carrier failed to provide factual evidence to disprove the claim, relying instead on supposition and unfounded hope.

Workers' Compensation PenaltyJust CauseCarrier ObjectionsEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationObjective Rational BasisGood-Faith BeliefEvidence RequirementsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Asset Protection & Security Services v. Service Employees International Union, Local 200 United

The Union appealed from an order that partially vacated an arbitration award. The arbitrator had determined that Asset Protection & Security Services, LP (APSS) lacked just cause to discharge an employee and ordered reinstatement with back pay. The Supreme Court vacated the award entirely. This appellate court found that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the arbitrator's finding of no just cause for termination, thereby reversing that part of the order. However, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by reinstating the employee and awarding back pay and benefits, citing the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) limitations on remedies in cases involving ICE-mandated actions. Two judges dissented in part.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeJust CauseArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewPublic PolicyReinstatementBack PayCPLR
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Newsday, Inc. v. Ross

Richard Thone was discharged for falsifying reports, leading to a complex series of administrative and judicial proceedings. Initially denied unemployment benefits, a referee granted them, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, finding misconduct. Concurrently, Thone filed a claim for a termination allowance, which the Industrial Commissioner ordered the employer to pay. The employer's appeal to the Industrial Board of Appeals confirmed this order, ruling against "just cause" for discharge. However, the higher court ultimately annulled the Industrial Board of Appeals' determination, concluding that the Industrial Commissioner should have been collaterally estopped from relitigating the "just cause" issue, given the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's prior finding of misconduct, thereby denying Thone's claim for severance pay.

collateral estoppelres judicataadministrative lawunemployment insurance benefitsseverance payemployee misconductjust cause for dischargefalsification of recordsIndustrial CommissionerUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

W & G Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board

This court case addresses whether an arbitrator's decision, upholding a 'just cause' discharge of an employee after a compensable accident, prevents the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) from hearing a claim of discriminatory discharge under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The court ruled that such an arbitration decision does not preclude the WCB, emphasizing the overriding public policy to have retaliatory discharge claims determined by the WCB as the statutorily mandated exclusive forum. It distinguishes between a contractual just cause discharge and a discriminatory firing, noting that the former could be a pretext for the latter. The court denied the petition to preclude the WCB, asserting that the public policy underlying Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 takes precedence over issue preclusion principles. It also suggests that the WCB can consider arbitration decisions as persuasive evidence but not conclusive.

Workers' Compensation Law § 120Discriminatory DischargeRetaliatory FiringIssue PreclusionArbitration AwardPublic PolicyWCB JurisdictionCPLR Article 78Just Cause DischargeCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 4,948 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