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

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Johnson & Higgins

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Johnson & Higgins (J&H) over a mandatory pre-65 retirement policy that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court previously found J&H liable and issued an injunction. J&H then sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for monetary and injunctive relief based on waivers signed by thirteen retired employee-directors, who had received $1,000 in exchange for waiving ADEA rights. The retired directors later repudiated these waivers, citing conflict of interest, economic duress, and undue influence. The EEOC opposed the waivers, arguing inadequate consideration, lack of voluntariness, and that J&H negotiated them without EEOC participation after a finding of liability. The District Court denied J&H's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration and the voluntariness of the waivers. The court also held that waivers entered into after a finding of liability and without EEOC participation are invalid as a matter of law.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEAWaiversSummary JudgmentKnowing and VoluntaryConsiderationOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActOWBPARepudiation of WaiversEEOC Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Keles v. Santos

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied a claimant's request for workers' compensation benefits. The claimant, primarily employed by Plymouth Beef Company, sought benefits for an injury allegedly sustained while performing inspection work for Augusto B. Santos, who owned a cleaning business at the same facility. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found no employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Santos, leading to the disallowance of the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting the lack of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors considered included Santos's lack of control over the claimant's work, the cessation of payment to the claimant months before the accident, and the gratuitous nature of the claimant's continued services, which did not establish an employment bond.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRight to ControlMethod of PaymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionGratuitous ServicesScope of Employment
References
9
Case No. C-5672, E-2429, C-5878
Regular Panel Decision

Buffalo United Charter School v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

Petitioners, consisting of Buffalo United Charter School, Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, and National Heritage Academies, Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge and annul a February 14, 2011 decision by the New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The PERB decision asserted jurisdiction over the charter schools, rejected National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preemption claims, and determined that assistant principals were neither managerial nor confidential employees. Petitioners contended that PERB lacked jurisdiction due to its joint public-private employment doctrine, that the NLRA preempted PERB's authority, and that PERB erroneously found the assistant principals lacked managerial or confidential status. They also argued the PERB decision unconstitutionally impaired their contractual rights. The court largely upheld PERB's jurisdiction, ruling that the Charter Schools Act superseded PERB's joint public-private employment doctrine and denying the NLRA preemption claim. However, the court annulled PERB's determination regarding the managerial and confidential status of assistant principals at Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, reinstating the Administrative Law Judge's original finding on that specific issue.

Charter SchoolsPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Taylor LawNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)JurisdictionJoint Public-Private Employment DoctrineManagerial EmployeesConfidential EmployeesCollective BargainingCPLR Article 78
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1991

Davis v. Alpha Apple, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant's decedent sustained an accidental injury during employment and awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the record lacked adequate support for the Board's finding. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that whether an activity falls within the course of employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve. The court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's determination, noting that the decedent was directed by a supervisor to perform an activity not for personal gain, with the employer's knowledge, and died as a result of an injury sustained while using the employer's equipment. The court also highlighted that even if an activity primarily benefits a supervisor privately, an injury sustained during that work may still be compensable.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewSupervisor's DirectionEmployer's EquipmentCompensable InjuryBoard Decision Affirmed
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Via Taxi, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained on March 31, 2007. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) denied coverage, citing the employer's prior policy cancellation due to nonpayment in 2003 and an outstanding balance at the time of reapplication in December 2006. SIF informed the employer in January 2007 that a new policy required debt satisfaction. Although the debt was cleared in March 2007, the employer did not reapply until May 11, 2007, making the new policy effective only from that date. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the employer lacked coverage on the injury date and imposed penalties under Workers’ Compensation Law § 26-a. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence for the Board's decision and rejecting the employer's estoppel argument.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoverageUninsured EmployerPenaltiesState Insurance FundPolicy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumsEstoppelAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Afflito v. Estee Frocks, Inc.

The petitioner, a union member, sought to overturn an arbitrator's award concerning grievances against his employer, an application opposed by both the employer and the union. The petitioner argued his eligibility to bring the action as a third-party beneficiary of the contract. However, the court ruled it could not review the merits of the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator misconduct. Citing Matter of Soto (Goldman) and Parker v. Borock, the court determined that the petitioner, not being a direct party to the arbitration agreement, lacked the standing to challenge the award against the employer under the Civil Practice Act. The court clarified that remedies under the Civil Practice Act are limited to parties to the arbitration. It further suggested that the petitioner's sole recourse for a meritorious grievance would be against the union for failing to initiate arbitration or for negligence in prosecuting it. Consequently, the court denied the application and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had no direct remedy against the employer.

Arbitrator's AwardThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee GrievanceUnion RepresentationJudicial Review of ArbitrationCivil Practice ActStanding to SueEmployer LiabilityUnion Liability
References
2
Case No. ADJ9123291
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

SALVADOR PEREZ vs. THREE Js TRUCKING, INC., UNINSURED EMPLOYER BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a finding that lien claimant Med-Legal LLC failed to prove applicant's employment. The WCAB found that applicant's statement to a physician, documented in a sworn report, constituted hearsay admissible in workers' compensation proceedings. This report, combined with the employer's lack of contrary evidence, shifted the burden to the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) to disprove employment. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the prior order and returned the case for further proceedings on the employment issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundEmployee StatusPrima Facie CaseHearsay EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chenango Forks Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The dissent challenges the court's confirmation of a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination, which compelled a school district (petitioner) to reinstate Medicare Part B reimbursements. This PERB ruling overturned an arbitrator's decision that found no violation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding these reimbursements, citing a lack of binding past practice. The dissenting judge argues that PERB improperly disregarded its own post-arbitral deference policies, thereby allowing the Association to relitigate an issue already addressed in a fair arbitration. The dissent emphasizes the importance of arbitration finality and raises concerns about the protracted process and potential unconstitutionality of payments not explicitly authorized.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPublic Employment Relations BoardPast PracticeMedicare Part B ReimbursementsGrievanceImproper Practice ChargePost-Arbitral DeferenceAbuse of DiscretionLabor Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ338022 (VNO 0469583)
Regular
Feb 05, 2009

FERMIN ANTONIO AMAYA vs. JOAQUIN VARGAS FLORES, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND, JOANNE L. CORDOVA, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration for the Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF) to clarify findings regarding the applicant's employment status and the UEF's involvement. The WCJ's prior decision rescinded a supposed dismissal of UEF and found the applicant was not an employee of the homeowner, but the record lacked clarity on these points. The Board found the WCJ's decision lacked sufficient factual basis and legal reasoning required by statute. Therefore, the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Uninsured Employers FundReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardJurisdictionCompromise and ReleaseDismissalHomeownerEmployeeLabor Code 3352(h)Lien Claimants
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 14,932 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