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. No. 77 Civ. 4712 (MP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1978

National Ben. Fund, Etc. v. Presby. H., Etc.

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers and the National Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers (the Funds) sued Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Inc. (Hospital) to recover allegedly owed contributions based on collective bargaining agreements. The Hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the action was barred by a prior arbitration award between the Union (District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees) and the Hospital, which concerned the same contributions and was dismissed due to the Union's unreasonable delay. The District Court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, held that the arbitration award had res judicata effect. The court determined that the Funds were either in privity with the Union or acted as third-party beneficiaries subject to the same defenses as the promisee Union. Consequently, the court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Arbitration AwardRes Judicata DoctrineEmployee Benefit FundsCollective Bargaining DisputesSummary Judgment MotionHospital Labor RelationsUnion RepresentationERISA ClaimsPreclusionFederal District Court
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

League of Voluntary Hospitals & Homes v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Workers Union

The court addresses an application for a preliminary injunction against Local 1199, a union planning a three-day strike. The League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of N. Y. sought the injunction following a previous temporary restraining order concerning a one-day strike. The union argued that each planned strike required a new legal proceeding, but the court deemed the strikes "episodic and organically connected." Citing concerns about blocked ingress/egress to hospitals and the union president's threats to "shut down" facilities, the judge found a preliminary injunction necessary under Labor Law § 807 to protect public health and safety. The injunction restrains the union from unlawfully interfering with hospital operations, blocking access, and picketing within certain distances of hospital entrances and emergency rooms.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionStrike ActionUnion ActivityHospital AccessPicketing RegulationsCollective BargainingCivil Disobedience ThreatPublic Health and SafetyIngress Egress Interference
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Heights-West Harlem-Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. v. District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, RWDSU

This case involves a dispute between District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, and Washington Heights-West Harlem-Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. The union sought to enforce an arbitration award requiring the Council to rehire and provide back pay to an employee, Edward Lane. The Council cross-moved to vacate the award, arguing that no valid collective bargaining agreement with an arbitration clause existed between the parties. Although the parties had acted under the terms of a proposed agreement for a period, including processing some grievances and wage increases, no formal, signed contract had ever been executed. Citing recent appellate court decisions emphasizing contract formalism over implied intent, the District Court granted the Council's motion to vacate the arbitration award and denied the union's motion to enforce it, concluding that without a signed agreement, there was no contractual duty to arbitrate.

Arbitration AwardSummary JudgmentContract FormationCollective BargainingLabor DisputeContract FormalismVacation of AwardEnforcement of AwardMeeting of the MindsFederal Court
References
23
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

Lewis v. North General Hospital

Darren Lewis, a pro se plaintiff, sued his former employer, North General Hospital, and his union, 1199SEIU United Health Care Workers East, alleging employment discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, and defamation. Lewis claimed discrimination based on perceived religion (Muslim) and sexual harassment by his supervisor, and that his union failed in its duty of fair representation. The hospital argued his termination was due to his failure to obtain a required social worker license. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants, ruling that the hospital had legitimate grounds for termination, Lewis's discrimination claims lacked legal basis under Title VII for "perceived religion" or sexual orientation, and the union adequately represented him.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationBreach of ContractDefamationHostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantSocial Worker Licensing
References
40
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04054
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2023

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Episcopal Church Home & Affiliates, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (plaintiff) assumed administration of the Long Term Care Risk Management Group, a self-insurance trust, and levied assessments against its former members (defendants) to cover an accumulated deficit. Defendants appealed an order granting plaintiff partial summary judgment, raising issues regarding the summons's jurisdictional sufficiency, the timeliness of plaintiff's subsequent assessments, and the applicability of a collection fee. The Appellate Division determined the summons was jurisdictionally sound and that the statutory 120-day period for levying assessments was directory, not mandatory, thus upholding the validity of later assessments. However, the Court modified the order by dismissing the plaintiff's claim for a collection fee, ruling that the fluctuating and unliquidated nature of the deficit did not meet the "liquidated sum" requirement of State Finance Law § 18. Consequently, the appeal was partially dismissed, the order and judgment modified to remove the collection fee, and affirmed in all other respects.

Group Self-Insurance TrustWorkers' Compensation AssessmentsStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of AssessmentsJurisdictional DefectSummary JudgmentState Finance LawCollection FeesLiquidated DebtAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses' Ass'n

Huntington Hospital initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to partially vacate an arbitration award, while the Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association cross-petitioned to confirm it. The dispute originated from the Hospital unilaterally granting two nurses, Betty Evans and Lynn Meyer, longevity pay credits exceeding the ten-year cap stipulated in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitrator found the Hospital violated the CBA's sections on pay and exclusive bargaining rights. The arbitrator mandated the Hospital roll back excess credits and recover overpayments. The District Court denied the Hospital's petition, dismissing arguments regarding public policy, manifest disregard for law, and lack of award finality, ultimately confirming the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal Arbitration ActWage DisputesLongevity PayUnion RightsPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawContract Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golan v. Montefiore Hospital

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Employees (Fund) appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision awarding a claimant pregnancy disability benefits under the Disability Benefits Law. The Fund's disability plan, filed by Montefiore Hospital, covered pregnancy, which was statutorily excluded by Workers’ Compensation Law § 205 (subd 3). The Fund contended the Board lacked jurisdiction over such claims. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 211 and 221, which grant the Board authority over all issues related to filed disability benefit plans. The court held that voluntarily conferred benefits that supersede statutory ones are fully enforceable by the Board, even if they cover disabilities explicitly excluded by statute.

Disability Benefits LawPregnancy DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionVoluntarily Conferred BenefitsStatutory ExclusionsAppellate ReviewEmployer Plan FilingBenefit Plan EnforcementWorkers' Compensation Law Article 9Section 211 Workers' Comp Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital

Plaintiffs, a group of uninsured and indigent patients, brought a consolidated action against New York-Presbyterian Hospital, NY-Presbyterian Health Care System, Inc., and the American Hospital Association. They argued that private non-profit hospitals are legally obligated to provide free or reduced-rate services to uninsured individuals and that the rates charged were unreasonable compared to those offered to insured patients. The plaintiffs alleged violations of federal laws, including 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) (tax exemption), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as various New York state laws, such as breach of contract, breach of charitable trust, New York General Business Law § 349, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims with prejudice, concluding that no federal or state law requires private non-profit hospitals to offer free or reduced-rate care or to charge uninsured patients the same as insured patients. The court found that plaintiffs lacked standing for several claims and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for the remaining allegations.

Uninsured Patient RightsHospital PricingNon-Profit HospitalsTax Exempt StatusDebt Collection PracticesEmergency Medical TreatmentCivil Rights ClaimsCharitable Trust LawNew York Business LawUnjust Enrichment
References
82
Showing 1-10 of 3,505 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