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

In Re Dana Corp.

Dana Corporation, as the debtor, sought court approval for its Executive Compensation Motion, which included the assumption of employment agreements and the establishment of a long-term incentive plan (LTIP) for its CEO and Senior Executives. This was Dana’s second attempt after an earlier, less incentivizing proposal was denied. The motion faced opposition from the U.S. Trustee, unions, and a non-union retiree committee, who raised concerns under Bankruptcy Code section 503(c) regarding retention and severance payments to insiders. The Court, treating the motion de novo, determined that the revised plan was a legitimate incentive program, not primarily retentive, and generally permissible under the Debtors’ sound business judgment. However, the Court expressed concern over the potential cumulative generosity of both the annual and long-term incentive plans for 2007-2008 without a clear ceiling. Consequently, the Executive Compensation Motion was granted, but conditioned on the submission of an order establishing an appropriate annual compensation cap for the CEO and Senior Executives.

Bankruptcy LawExecutive CompensationIncentive PlansEmployment AgreementsChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' RightsBusiness Judgment RuleKey Employee Retention Programs (KERPs)Severance PayNon-compete Clauses
References
28
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01193 [214 AD3d 735]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2023

Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Long Beach

This case concerns a dispute between the Long Beach Professional Firefighters Association (union) and the City of Long Beach regarding the terms of employment for paramedics. The City had unilaterally set these terms, leading the union to file a grievance and subsequently seek arbitration. The arbitrator found that the City violated the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award, which the City appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the City failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to vacate the arbitration award on grounds of irrationality, manifest disregard of law, arbitrator misconduct, or violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardCPLR Article 75 ProceedingJudicial Review of ArbitrationPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawAppellate ReviewMunicipal EmploymentParamedicsGrievance
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03356 [161 AD3d 855]
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2018

Matter of City of Long Beach v. Long Beach Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Local 287

The City of Long Beach (petitioner) appealed an order denying its petition to stay arbitration and granting the Long Beach Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 287's (respondent) cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose after the City laid off firefighters and hired paramedics, setting the paramedics' terms of employment unilaterally. The union filed a grievance and demand for arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the City's petition and granted the union's cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that arbitration of the claim regarding firefighter layoffs violated public policy, citing Civil Service Law § 80 (1) which grants public employers nondelegable discretion over staffing. However, the court found no public policy precluding arbitration of claims related to the paramedics' terms of employment, as permitted by the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the order was modified to grant the City's petition to stay arbitration of the layoff claim and deny the union's cross-motion to compel arbitration of that claim, while affirming the rest of the order.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyFirefighter LayoffsParamedics EmploymentCivil Service LawManagement PrerogativeTaylor LawAppellate ReviewLabor Dispute
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Bayer Corp. Long Term Disability Plan

Plaintiff Terry Smith, a former Diabetes Sales Specialist for Bayer Corporation, filed an action under ERISA to recover long-term disability benefits, claiming wrongful denial due to psychiatric impairments including depression, panic disorder, and bi-polar disorder. The Plan administrator, Bayer, upheld the denial based on reviews by non-examining physicians. However, Smith's treating psychiatrists, Dr. LeBuffe and Dr. McCool, consistently found him disabled. The court found the Plan's reliance on non-examining doctors, who 'cherry-picked' medical records and distorted findings, to be arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court granted Smith's motion for benefits, denying Bayer's, and also awarded partial disability benefits, ruling that Smith's failure to seek rehabilitation approval was excused by the prior wrongful denial.

ERISALong-term disabilityDisability benefits denialPsychiatric impairmentDepressionPanic disorderBi-polar disorderAttention Deficit Disorder (ADD)Treating physician ruleArbitrary and capricious standard
References
26
Case No. 01-11-00553-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2012

Debora Fletcher, Robert Jacobsen, Melissa Johnson, Karen Steiner and Nancy Trejo v. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc.

Appellants, former employees of Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. (ERT), sued ERT for breach of contract, alleging that ERT failed to pay long-term incentive bonuses. The incentive provision stated that a cash award would vest over a five-year period, commencing on January 1, 2008, with 20 percent vesting each subsequent year until 2012. Appellants left ERT between 2008 and 2010 and did not receive payments after their departure. The trial court granted ERT's summary-judgment motion and denied appellants' motion for partial summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the 'Long Term Incentive' provision unambiguously required employees to be employed at ERT on the vesting dates to be entitled to their awards, aligning with the plain and ordinary meaning of 'vest' and the purpose of a long-term incentive.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentEmployment agreementLong Term IncentiveVestingContract interpretationTexas lawAppellate reviewEmployee benefitsCompensation dispute
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. General Dynamics Long Term Disability Benefits Plan

Thomas E. Martin, a former General Dynamics employee, filed a lawsuit under ERISA against General Dynamics Long Term Disability Plan, General Dynamics Corporation, and Aetna Life Insurance Company. Martin claimed improper calculation of his long-term disability (LTD) benefits, arguing that the defendants wrongly deducted his workers' compensation and Social Security benefits. The central issue was the commencement date of Martin's total disability, as the Plan's terms allowed deductions if these other benefits were not received immediately prior to disability onset. The court, applying an abuse of discretion standard, determined that the defendants' decision to set Martin's disability onset date as May 10, 1990, the day he ceased working, was not arbitrary or capricious. This finding supported the defendants' deductions. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Martin's claims. An earlier motion by Lockheed Corporation was denied as moot.

Summary judgmentERISALong term disability benefitsBenefit calculationDisability onset dateAbuse of discretion standardFederal courtPlan interpretationEmployee benefitsDisability insurance
References
7
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00977 [136 AD3d 824]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2016

Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn., Local 287 v. City of Long Beach

Jay Gusler, a lieutenant in the City of Long Beach Fire Department and a member of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Association, Local 287, was demoted to firefighter. This demotion followed a disciplinary proceeding presided over by Robert L. Douglas, as per a settlement agreement between the City and the Association. The appellants (Gusler and the Association) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the demotion, arguing Douglas lacked authority under the City Code. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the City and Association could negotiate a collective bargaining agreement allowing demotion, and Douglas acted within the authority granted by their settlement agreement.

DemotionFirefightersCollective Bargaining AgreementSettlement AgreementDisciplinary ProceedingsArticle 78 ProceedingArbitrator AuthorityCity CodePublic EmploymentAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. Appeal No. 01A01-9709-CV-00483, Davidson Circuit No. 96C-363
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1998

Long, et. ux. v. Landmark Television of TN

Billy Ray Long and Vicky Long appealed a summary dismissal of their lawsuit against Landmark Television of Tennessee, Inc., and supervisor James E. Norton, alleging emotional injury from verbal and physical harassment. The harassment, including physical touching and derogatory comments about Mr. Long's obesity, occurred from 1988 to 1995, leading to medical leave and emotional distress for both plaintiffs. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury and preempted by the Workers Compensation Law. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the physical injury claims were time-barred and that the employer-employee relationship did not support a tort claim for emotional distress, with Workers Compensation providing the exclusive remedy for employment-related misconduct. Furthermore, the court found the supervisor's conduct did not meet the 'outrageous conduct' threshold required for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Vicky Long's claims were dependent on her husband's.

Emotional DistressHarassmentSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWorkers CompensationEmployer LiabilitySupervisor MisconductIntentional TortsLoss of ConsortiumAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2004

Thomas v. Long

Jeanne Long, a former Harris County jailer, was reinstated by the Harris County Sheriffs Department Civil Service Commission after her termination. However, the Department required her to complete a physical ability test before returning to work, which Long refused. She then filed suit in state district court against Sheriff Tommy Thomas, seeking a declaratory judgment that she was entitled to return without the test. The district court partially ruled in Long's favor, implicitly denying the Sheriff's jurisdictional challenge. The court of appeals dismissed the Sheriff's interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals did have jurisdiction and that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Long's reinstatement claims because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with the Commission regarding the physical test requirement. Consequently, Long's reinstatement claims were dismissed.

Interlocutory AppealSubject Matter JurisdictionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesGovernmental UnitPlea to the JurisdictionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusCivil Service SystemEmployment Law
References
27
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06495 [143 AD3d 710]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2016

Matter of City of Long Beach v. Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn., Local 287

The City of Long Beach appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the case, reiterating that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited, permissible only if the award violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds the arbitrator's power. The Court found that the arbitrator did not apply an incorrect standard of review and that the award itself did not violate public policy, was not irrational, and did not clearly exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order and judgment.

Arbitration awardJudicial reviewPublic policy violationIrrational arbitrationArbitrator's powerAppellate Division Second DepartmentCPLR Article 75Vacate arbitration awardFirefighters Association disputeNassau County Supreme Court
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,817 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