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. 2018 NY Slip Op 01591 [159 AD3d 787]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2018

Bidnick v. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of N.Y.

Neal Bidnick, a long-standing member of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons, was expelled following Masonic trials, despite initial reversals by the Masonic Commission of Appeals. This action arose after the Grand Lodge reinstated a guilty finding at its annual meeting, leading to Bidnick's expulsion. Bidnick sued the Grand Lodge and individual defendants for breach of contract, alleging wrongful expulsion, and defamation, claiming false statements of misappropriation. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting the dismissal of the defamation claim against the Grand Lodge, denying dismissal of the defamation claim against individual defendants in their individual capacities, and denying the dismissal of the breach of contract claim. The court's decision addressed the application of Benevolent Orders Law and the _Martin_ rule concerning the liability of unincorporated associations and their members.

Breach of ContractDefamationExpulsionUnincorporated AssociationBenevolent Orders LawMasonic LodgeIndividual LiabilityRepresentative CapacityCPLR 3211 (a) (7) MotionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Local Lodge 197, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers

The Secretary of Labor initiated this action against Local Lodge 197 for violating the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The contention was that Lodge 197 denied member Charles McNally a reasonable opportunity to be a candidate for union office due to an unreasonable meeting attendance rule. The court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment, first confirming McNally had exhausted internal remedies. It then determined that Lodge 197's attendance rule, which disqualified a significant portion of its membership, was an unreasonable qualification under section 401(e) of the Act. Consequently, the court granted the Secretary's motion, voided the election, and ordered a new election under federal supervision, simultaneously denying Lodge 197's cross-motion.

Labor LawUnion ElectionsSummary JudgmentEligibility RulesMeeting AttendanceLMRDAStatutory InterpretationDemocratic ProcessesUnion OfficeFederal Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2013

Matter of Lodge v. Lodge

The father and mother, divorced parents, initially had joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the mother. Due to the mother's work schedule, the child spent considerable time with the father. The mother subsequently moved to Brooklyn and took the child, prompting the father to seek full custody, while the mother cross-petitioned for permission to relocate. Family Court awarded joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the father and specified visitation for the mother. The mother appealed this decision. The Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's ruling, concluding that the mother failed to prove that the proposed relocation was in the child's best interest and that the father demonstrated a superior ability to provide a stable environment.

CustodyRelocationBest Interest of ChildParental FitnessJoint Legal CustodyPhysical CustodyVisitationFamily Court AppealUlster CountyFinancial Stability
References
21
Case No. ADJ169349; ADJ4412540
Regular
Aug 19, 2014

VICTOR HERNANDEZ, SR. vs. SPORTSMAN'S LODGE RESTAURANT, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Victor Hernandez Sr. and his workers' compensation claim against Sportsman's Lodge Restaurant, Inc. and Zenith Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Hernandez's petition for reconsideration. This denial was based on the board adopting the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. The denial specifically notes that the petitioner was properly served with notices regarding a lien conference and a notice of intention to dismiss the lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportEAMSNotice of Lien ConferenceProof of ServiceNotice of IntentionDismiss LienApplicantDefendants
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 967 v. General Electric Co.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge No. 967 (Union) sued General Electric Company (GE) and Pow-erex, Inc. in New York State Supreme Court, Cayuga County, alleging age discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law. GE removed the action to federal court, asserting preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The federal court, presided over by Chief Judge McCURN, determined that the Union's state law age discrimination claims were not completely preempted by either federal statute. The court emphasized that the claims primarily arose under state law and did not fall within the scope of ERISA's civil enforcement provisions for removal purposes. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case back to the New York State Supreme Court, Cayuga County.

Age DiscriminationState Law PreemptionFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActEmployee Retirement Income Security ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemoval JurisdictionRemandNew York Human Rights LawAge Discrimination in Employment Act
References
21
Case No. ADJ8982231
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

CATHERINE BIGGAR vs. SAKS INCORPORATED, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and denied the claim for lodging reimbursement. The Board found that there was no substantial medical evidence demonstrating that temporary hotel lodging was reasonably required to cure or relieve the applicant from her foot injury. The applicant's own testimony was insufficient to establish medical necessity for the lodging. Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to reimbursement for her hotel stay.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalIndustrial InjuryRight Foot InjurySales AssociateTemporary LodgingMedical TreatmentLabor Code Section 4600Substantial Medical Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lane v. Fort Neck Dredging Co.

The dissenting opinion, led by Herlihy, J., argues against the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that an employee's accident, occurring during travel to work, arose out of and in the course of his employment. The opinion emphasizes that the employee received a weekly allowance for lodging and meals, characterized as 'subsistence pay,' which was not compensation for travel. It further notes that the employee was not required to live in any particular place for the employer's benefit, nor was the lodging furnished by the employer or on the work site. The dissent distinguishes the present case from precedents where lodging was provided as compensation or for the employer's benefit, or in cases of temporary assignment, concluding that the employee was not within his employment during the travel and that the claim should therefore be reversed and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentTravel ExpensesSubsistence AllowanceEmployee LodgingWorkplace InjuryDissenting OpinionEmployment ContractOff-premises InjuryAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2008

Rebeor v. Moose Lodge 1280

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant sustained an employment-related injury in 1988, with the last compensation payment made in 1990. In 2007, after the carrier denied further medical treatment, the claimant requested Board action, leading the carrier to seek § 25-a relief. The Board reopened the case and shifted liability for potential future medical treatment to the Special Fund, despite no current payable liability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in determining the Special Fund's responsibility for future medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesSchedule Loss of UseMedical TreatmentLiability ShiftWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 1998

Santos v. Floral Park Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons

In a personal injury action, third-party defendants appealed from orders denying their motion to dismiss a third-party claim for breach of an agreement to procure insurance. The Supreme Court, Queens County, had initially denied the dismissal. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the initial order, as it was superseded by a subsequent order made upon reargument. The appellate court affirmed the order made upon reargument, holding that the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Act of 1996 does not bar a third-party action against an employer for breach of an agreement to procure liability insurance.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation LawBreach of Agreement to Procure InsuranceEmployer LiabilityAppealSupreme CourtQueens CountyMotion to DismissStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turco v. LOCAL LODGE 5, INT. BROTH. OF BOILERMAKERS

This case involves plaintiffs suing their union local, alleging that the local refused to refer them for employment due to their father being a union dissident and their prior lawsuit against the local. The claims include discipline without due process, discipline for filing suit, and breach of the duty of fair representation, citing various sections of 29 U.S.C. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing a six-month statute of limitations as per DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Plaintiffs counter-argued for New York's six-year breach of contract limitation and sought to amend their complaint. The court sided with the defendant, finding the action time-barred and denying the motion to amend, resulting in the dismissal of the case.

union disputefair representationstatute of limitationslabor lawLMRDAcollective bargaining agreementinternal union disciplinemotion to dismisstime-barredfederal jurisdiction
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 41 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