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
Aug 26, 2011

Karic v. Major Automotive Companies, Inc.

Plaintiffs, sales representatives, commenced an action against Major World car dealerships and individual defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) due to alleged failures to pay proper minimum wages. They moved for conditional certification of a collective action, approval of a proposed FLSA Notice, and expedited discovery. Defendants opposed, arguing discovery was substantially advanced and thus a heightened standard for certification should apply, and that certain entities should be excluded due to a lack of named representatives. The Court granted the plaintiffs' request for conditional certification, finding they met the minimal burden of showing similarly situated employees and a common compensation policy across all Major World entities. The Court also provided specific instructions for modifying the proposed class notice and ordered defendants to provide contact information for potential opt-in plaintiffs.

FLSANYLLCollective ActionConditional CertificationMinimum WageWage and HourSales RepresentativesCar DealershipsOpt-inSimilarly Situated
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chen v. Major League Baseball

John Chen sued Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. and the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (MLB) under the FLSA and NYLL, claiming minimum wage violations for his unpaid volunteer work during the 2013 Baseball All Star Game's "FanFest". He sought conditional class certification. MLB moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Chen was a volunteer and that FanFest, as a seasonal "amusement or recreational establishment," was exempt from FLSA minimum wage requirements. The court granted MLB's motion to dismiss the FLSA claims, finding that FanFest qualified for the Section 13(a)(3) exemption due to its short operational period and status as a distinct physical place of business. Consequently, Chen's motion for collective certification was denied as moot, and his state-law NYLL claims were dismissed without prejudice.

FLSA ExemptionMinimum Wage ClaimsVolunteer EmploymentSeasonal OperationsDistinct Physical Place of BusinessEnterprise vs EstablishmentClass Action DenialState Law Claims DismissalJudicial DiscretionStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Major v. New York State Court of Claims

Judge Charles T. Major, a New York Court of Claims Judge, experienced an unusual increase in his workload starting in January 1962, working extended hours and forgoing usual breaks to clear a significant backlog of cases. This intense period culminated in his hospitalization on June 30, 1962, due to pulmonary edema or congestive heart failure, leading to his death the following day. The Workmen’s Compensation Board affirmed an award of death benefits to his widow, concluding that his death resulted from an industrial accident due to the undue anxiety, strain, and mental stress from his work. Medical experts offered conflicting opinions on the causal relationship between his work and death, but the Board accepted the claimant's expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing precedents that recognize mental stress as a compensable cause of injury.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndustrial AccidentMental StressUndue AnxietyJudicial WorkloadCausally Related DeathMedical OpinionAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
12
Case No. ADJ7509842
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

Latrisha Majors vs. Palmdale School District, York Insurance Services Group

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the original award to include an injury to the applicant's head, in addition to her back. However, they affirmed the finding of $0\%$ permanent disability and no need for further medical treatment. This decision relied on the applicant's primary treating physician's opinion, deeming it more persuasive and giving significant weight to the WCJ's credibility finding of the applicant. The amendment to include the head injury was based on the WCJ's report acknowledging a concussion, even if subjective complaints of headaches were not found credible.

Latrisha MajorsPalmdale School DistrictYork Insurance ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardspecial education substituteindustrial injuryback injurypermanent disabilitymedical treatment
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01870 [181 AD3d 1116]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Hirschbeck v. Office of the Commr. of Major League Baseball

Claimant Mark Hirschbeck appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which denied his application for review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision. The Board's denial was based on procedural non-compliance, specifically that the claimant failed to properly fill out the RB-89 form by merely referencing the entire Board case file instead of specifying relevant documents. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application due to the claimant's failure to adhere to prescribed formatting and completion requirements. The court noted that arguments regarding the underlying merits of the WCLJ's decision were not properly before them. This case underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in workers' compensation appeals.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewProcedural ComplianceApplication DenialAdministrative LawBoard ReviewWCLJ DecisionRB-89 FormRegulatory RequirementsClaimant Representation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, LLP v. WN Partner, LLC

This dissenting opinion addresses an arbitration dispute over telecast rights fees between the Baltimore Orioles/MASN and the Washington Nationals, administered by Major League Baseball (MLB). MASN and the Orioles sought to vacate the arbitration award, alleging evident partiality due to conflicts of interest involving the Nationals' law firm, an MLB loan to the Nationals, and MLB's significant influence. While the Supreme Court vacated the award, it remanded the matter to the same arbitral forum (RSDC). The dissent argues that MLB's pervasive bias, financial stake, and the Commissioner's public statements prevent a fundamentally fair rehearing by the RSDC, necessitating referral to a neutral forum like the American Arbitration Association to preserve arbitration integrity.

ArbitrationEvident PartialityContract ReformationJudicial Review of ArbitrationSports LawBaseball IndustryConflict of InterestArbitrator BiasArbitral Forum SelectionDissenting Opinion
References
23
Case No. ADJ8159377
Regular
Jan 21, 2016

PETER MARINO vs. MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER (COLUMBUS CREW et. al.), INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA/ACE USA

This case involves a professional soccer player's workers' compensation claim for cumulative industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the initial award due to issues with permanent disability rate and apportionment. Crucially, the Board remanded the case to determine Major League Soccer's (MLS) role as a single entity employer, as the applicant's initial contract was signed in California, establishing jurisdiction. This determination will impact liability and the potential joinder of prior insurers.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPeter MarinoMajor League SoccerInsurance Company of North AmericaACE USAPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgeindustrial injuryprofessional soccer player
References
5
Case No. ADJ11968759
Regular
Apr 13, 2023

JESUS ORTEGA GONZALEZ vs. MAJOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., BALJINDER S. GILL, PEOPLEASE LLC, NATIONAL INTERSTATE RICHFIELD.

This case involves an applicant injured while employed by both Major Transportation Services and Peoplease, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO). Peoplease sought reconsideration of a finding that they jointly employed the applicant on the date of injury, arguing payroll was not processed through them. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that a co-employment relationship existed. The WCJ found that despite Peoplease's argument about payroll timing, evidence showed Peoplease benefitted from the applicant's work and their actions were inconsistent with strict contract adherence, akin to precedent in Gulam v. Patel. Ultimately, Peoplease's arguments regarding payroll timing were deemed coverage issues subject to arbitration and not grounds to deny the finding of co-employment.

Professional Employer OrganizationPEOdual employmentgeneral employerspecial employerco-employmentclient policyLabor Code section 3602(d)presumption of employmentsubstantial evidence
References
9
Case No. 17-CV-3136 (RRM)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Cognetta v. Bonavita

The trustees of the Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union Local 1-D Major Medical Plan sought a declaratory judgment to establish an equitable lien or constructive trust on any future recovery by defendants James and Nicole Bonavita from a state negligence action. The Plan had paid $110,000 in medical expenses for James Bonavita following a car accident. Defendants argued that New York General Obligation Law § 5-335 precluded reimbursement and that the action was premature. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling that ERISA preempts Section 5-335 because the Plan is self-funded. The court found the declaratory judgment to be appropriate equitable relief, establishing an equitable lien over future settlement or judgment funds, compelling defendants to hold such proceeds in trust for the Plan's benefit.

ERISASelf-Funded PlanEquitable LienConstructive TrustSubrogationReimbursementDeclaratory JudgmentPreemptionNew York General Obligation LawMake-Whole Doctrine
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bueno

Chief Judge Lippman dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that they misinterpreted Penal Law § 120.05 (3) regarding assault in the second degree. The dissent contends that the majority incorrectly focuses on the victim's activity rather than the defendant's specific intent to prevent an emergency medical technician (EMT) from performing a lawful duty. Lippman asserts that while intent to injure may have been present, the evidence was insufficient to prove the higher standard of specific intent required by the statute to interfere with the EMT's duties. The dissent also criticizes the majority's application of *People v Steinberg* to infer intent solely from the outcome of the act, stating that surrounding circumstances must also be considered. Concluding that the rule announced by the majority conflicts with the plain meaning of the statute, Chief Judge Lippman would reverse the Appellate Division's order.

AssaultSecond Degree AssaultPenal LawSpecific IntentLawful DutyEmergency Medical TechnicianEMTIntent to PreventPhysical InjuryCriminal Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 557 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