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. SBR 0283205, SBR 0267402
Regular
Dec 11, 2007

PHILLIP F. GARCIA vs. LOCKHEED MARTIN AIRCRAFT SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured, ESIS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE (ADM./ADJ. AGT.)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for total permanent disability, which combined the effects of a 1995 shoulder/arm/hand injury and a 1998 bilateral shoulder/upper extremity injury. The defendant, Lockheed Martin, argued that separate awards were required as the injuries became permanent and stationary at different times and affected different body parts. The Board rescinded the award and returned the case to the trial level to await a forthcoming en banc decision on the applicability of the Wilkinson doctrine regarding combined permanent disability awards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLockheed Martin Aircraft ServicesPermissibly Self-InsuredESISTravelers InsurancePhillip F. GarciaFurther Supplemental Findings and AwardTotally Permanently Disabled1995 injury1998 injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. SCI Management L.P.

The plaintiff, Rita Martin, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against her former employers, SCI Management L.P. and SCI Funeral Services of New York, Inc., and her former supervisor, Peter D’Arienzo. The lawsuit alleged violations of Title VII, FMLA, FLSA, and New York and Westchester County Human Rights Laws. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in the plaintiff's employment contract. The court granted the defendants' motion, compelling arbitration and dismissing the complaint without prejudice, after rejecting the plaintiff's arguments regarding the unenforceability of the arbitration agreement due to concerns about costs, discovery limitations, and the availability of punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationArbitration AgreementTitle VIIFMLAFLSANew York Human Rights LawWestchester County Human Rights LawFederal Arbitration ActMotion to Compel ArbitrationDismissal Without Prejudice
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2012

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Plaintiff City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System initiated a securities class action against Lockheed Martin Corp. and three executives, alleging intentional false and misleading statements regarding the performance of Lockheed Martin’s Information Systems & Global Systems division. The defendants moved to dismiss all counts. The court denied the motion to dismiss Count I, a claim of securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, finding sufficient allegations of falsity, materiality, and scienter, particularly for executive Linda Gooden. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss Counts II and III, asserting control person liability, due to the plaintiff's failure to present a plausible alternative theory where defendants were not primary violators. This memorandum details the reasons for these rulings.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPSLRASafe HarborBespeaks Caution DoctrineScienterMaterialityCore Operations DoctrineGroup Pleading
References
47
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kubik v. New York State Department of Social Services

Jennifer Collins left home after an argument with her mother, Renee Kubik. Officer Frank Martin arranged shelter for Jennifer through the Columbia County Department of Social Services. Kubik subsequently sued Martin and the Town of Stockport, alleging violations of her constitutional rights related to Jennifer's placement, a child abuse report filed by Martin, his testimony in a small claims proceeding, and an affidavit he provided for a harassment charge against Kubik. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court found Martin's actions to be objectively reasonable and protected by qualified immunity. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granted summary judgment to Martin and the Town of Stockport, and dismissed the complaint against them, concluding that no constitutional rights violations had occurred.

Qualified immunityCivil rights violationSummary judgmentParental rightsChild welfarePolice conductDue processHarassment chargeAppellate reviewGovernment liability
References
11
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Matter of Martin (Trucking Support Servs., LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Anthony Martin, a truck driver, filed for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor determined he was an employee of Trucking Support Services, LLC (TSS) and Distribution Cooperative Network of NY (DCN) under the New York State Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act. TSS and DCN contested this, arguing Martin was an independent contractor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the initial determinations, finding Martin to be an employee. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that TSS and DCN failed to overcome the statutory presumption of employment and that the Fair Play Act was not preempted by federal law.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorCommercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play ActEmployee ClassificationLabor LawStatutory Presumption of EmploymentABC TestSeparate Business Entity TestFederal Aviation Administration Authorization ActPreemption
References
10
Case No. ADJ4280535 (VNO 0554134)
Regular
Dec 06, 2013

LUZ FLOREZ vs. AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL insured by COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Luz Florez's petition for reconsideration against Aircraft Service International. The dismissal was based on the petition being unverified and untimely. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report and recommendation, which provided the reasons for dismissal. This order formally terminates Florez's reconsideration attempt in this case.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedUnverifiedUntimelyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWCJReport and RecommendationRecordIncorporated
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. AMR Services Corp.

Plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against AMR Services Corp., alleging a violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) due to the closure of its Security Department at JFK Airport. AMR sought summary judgment, contending that the number of employees experiencing an "employment loss" fell below the WARN Act's threshold, thereby negating the 60-day notice requirement. The central issue was whether 18 employees, transferred to other roles within AMR shortly after the department closure, suffered an "employment loss." The court applied a practical, effects-driven analysis, determining that these employees did not suffer an employment loss as their jobs were continuous or any interruption was less than the statutory six-month layoff period. Consequently, the court granted AMR's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion, and dismissed the case.

WARN ActEmployment LossSummary JudgmentLayoffEmployee TransferCorporate DownsizingStatutory InterpretationFederal LawWorker RightsNotification Requirements
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 7,361 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