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

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06627
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2018

Mack v. City of New York

Plaintiff Ivy J. Mack, a secretary for the New York County District Attorney, was injured in a trip and fall incident at work, for which she received Workers' Compensation benefits paid by the City of New York. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendants' motion to amend their answer to assert a Workers' Compensation exclusivity defense and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding that employees of the District Attorney's office are considered employees of the City for Workers' Compensation purposes. This makes the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law applicable, thus barring the plaintiff's lawsuit.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityTrip and FallGovernment EmploymentAffirmative DefenseLeave to AmendMunicipal LiabilityDistrict Attorney's OfficePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK-cali Realty Corp. v. NGM Insurance

Mack-Cali Realty Corporation and Mack-Cali CW Realty Associates, LLC (Mack-Cali) leased premises to Westchester County Electric, Inc. (WCE). Under the lease, WCE was obligated to obtain comprehensive general liability insurance naming Mack-Cali as an additional insured. WCE secured a policy with NGM Insurance Company (NGM), while Mack-Cali also held a policy with Lexington Insurance Company. When a UPS worker sued WCE and Mack-Cali for injuries sustained at the loading dock, NGM declined to defend Mack-Cali. Mack-Cali then initiated a declaratory judgment action against NGM. The Supreme Court granted Mack-Cali's summary judgment motion, compelling NGM to defend and declaring NGM's policy primary. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court finding a causal relationship between the injury and WCE's operations on the leased premises, and NGM's policy to be primary over Lexington's excess policy.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendAdditional Insured EndorsementPrimary InsuranceExcess InsuranceSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractIndemnificationAppellate ReviewLease Agreement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mack v. Ford Motor Co.

The Supreme Court affirmed an order granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff Robert Mack in a case brought under Labor Law § 240 (1). Mack sustained injuries after falling from a three-tiered scaffold that lacked a guardrail. The defendant argued that Mack was a recalcitrant worker for not using available safety equipment and that a waiver signed by Mack absolved them of liability. However, the court found no evidence that Mack refused to use safety equipment, distinguishing this from a recalcitrant worker defense. Furthermore, the court determined that the waiver was contrary to public policy as it undermines the protective intent of Labor Law § 240 (1), which places responsibility for safety practices on owners and contractors.

Scaffold fallLabor Law 240(1)recalcitrant workerwaiverpublic policypremises liabilityworkplace safetysummary judgmentappellate reviewguardrail
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Town of Wallkill

Plaintiff Kimberly Mack sued the Town of Wallkill, Chief Coscette, and Officer Bruce under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Mack alleged officers unlawfully arrested her at gunpoint and fabricated criminal mischief charges, with Coscette's purported involvement in inflating damages. The court denied defendants' summary judgment on false arrest and Monell claims, finding genuine factual disputes regarding probable cause and supervisory liability. However, malicious prosecution claims were dismissed as the underlying criminal charge was terminated on procedural grounds, not on the merits of Mack's innocence.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentQualified Immunity42 U.S.C. § 1983Police MisconductProbable CauseMonell ClaimConstitutional RightsExcessive Force
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hess v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

Plaintiffs Raymond Hess and Dennis Heuer sought damages for personal injuries from defendants Mack Trucks, Inc. and Mineóla Mack Distributors, Inc., the manufacturer and distributor of a sanitation truck chassis. The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, denying their motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs were injured when the truck, fitted with a 'Packmaster' garbage compactor, overturned. They alleged negligence and strict products liability, claiming the chassis was inadequate for the compactor's weight and that there was a failure to warn about overloading or using it with a single-axle chassis. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, holding that the dangers of overloading were not self-evident and that material issues of fact remained regarding the defendants' knowledge of the chassis's intended use and the foreseeability of the loading practices.

Personal InjuryProduct LiabilityNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDuty to WarnDefective ProductSanitation TruckChassisOverloading
References
3
Case No. ADJ2017878 (VNO 0541633)
Regular
May 09, 2011

MACK FULP vs. VAN-PACK, INC., AIMS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. However, the WCAB granted reconsideration on its own motion to review the WCJ's Lien Orders from March 8, 2011. The WCAB rescinded those Lien Orders concerning Dr. Leoni and Precision RX and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision on the liens. This action was taken despite the defendant's contention that the lien amounts were based on incorrect assertions about prior payments.

Lien OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleBoard MotionRescindedTrial LevelWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMack FulpVan-Pack Inc.
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff Sharon Mack initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court against Metro-North Commuter Railroad and employees Maurice Kiniry and Joe Bauman, alleging state law claims of defamation, assault, unlawful imprisonment, and intentional infliction of mental anguish on behalf of herself and her son. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the claims were preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) due to their purported relation to collective bargaining agreements regarding employee passes. Plaintiff cross-moved for remand to state court, contending her claims were independent state law torts not preempted by federal labor law. The court, citing recent Supreme Court precedent in Hawaiian Airlines v. Norris, determined that the plaintiff's claims did not require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement and thus were not preempted by the RLA. Therefore, the court concluded that the claims were purely factual questions suitable for a state court jury.

PreemptionRailway Labor ActState Law ClaimsTort ClaimsSubject Matter JurisdictionRemandDefamationFalse ImprisonmentEmotional DistressCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
12
Case No. ADJ11226838
Regular
Oct 29, 2019

DAVID MACK vs. ALICE MACK, FIRST AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the previous Findings and Orders due to defective service on the applicant, making the petition timely. The core issue is whether the applicant, who performed renovation work, was an employee or a residential employee under Labor Code section 3351(d). The WCAB found insufficient evidence to determine if the work was performed in the course of the owner's trade, business, or occupation. The case is returned for further proceedings and a new decision, potentially involving the Uninsured Employer Benefit Trust Fund.

Labor Code Section 3351(d)residential employeetrade or businessinsurance coveragepetition for reconsiderationdefective servicetimelinessMinutes of HearingUninsured Employer Benefit Trust Fundemployment status
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johannesen v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Claimant, an office assistant for the City of New York, developed bronchial asthma due to prolonged exposure to tobacco smoke and dust in her crowded office. She filed for workers’ compensation benefits, initially deemed a compensable occupational disease by a WCLJ. The Workers’ Compensation Board later rescinded this, finding instead an accidental injury from repeated exposure to cigarette smoke, and remitted the case. The employer appealed, arguing preclusion by *Matter of Mack v County of Rockland* and lack of substantial evidence. The court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing *Mack* and finding substantial evidence for an unusual environmental hazard and definite disabling events leading to accidental injury.

Occupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryBronchial AsthmaCigarette Smoke ExposureWorkplace HazardWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical AggravationEnvironmental HazardSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 23 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