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

Claim of Hernandez v. Carpet

The claimant, a sales manager, was injured in a one-car accident while driving home after attending a mandatory evening meeting for his employer in Jamaica, Queens. He had transported two co-employees from the meeting, dropping them off at the store and then another near his home on his direct route to West Haverstraw, New York. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially determined that the injury, sustained on the Sprain Brook Parkway, was compensable as it arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer and its carrier appealed this decision, arguing that the injury did not meet the criteria for compensability. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s ruling, finding the employer’s arguments unpersuasive and stating that the stops to drop off co-employees on a direct route home from a required work function did not negate the compensable nature of the injury.

Compensable InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentTravel TimeEmployer Mandated MeetingCommuting AccidentWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAppellate AffirmationSales Manager AccidentDual Purpose Trip
References
4
Case No. ADJ9735466
Regular
Dec 07, 2015

DANIEL KAVANAGH vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and found applicant's claim barred by the going and coming rule. The Board determined that the applicant's commute to a mandatory monthly sergeants' meeting, even on his day off and in uniform, did not constitute a special mission. The court reasoned that the meeting's location, timing, and nature were not extraordinary relative to routine duties, and thus no exception to the rule applied. Consequently, the applicant was ordered to take nothing by way of his claim.

Going and coming ruleSpecial mission exceptionAOE/COECustody sergeantDeputy sheriffMandatory meetingDay offExtra ordinary activityRoutine dutiesEmployer benefit
References
12
Case No. ADJ11209389
Regular
Dec 03, 2018

CARLOTA FORBES vs. ESIS, INC.; ACE INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal and dismissed their Petition for Disqualification. The defendant sought removal due to alleged procedural errors and bias by the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) following a mandatory settlement conference. The Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal. Furthermore, the Petition for Disqualification was dismissed for failing to meet procedural requirements, specifically the lack of a supporting affidavit under penalty of perjury detailing the grounds for disqualification. Even on the merits, the Board determined the defendant's claims of bias were based on subjective perceptions and did not meet the legal standard for disqualification.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ DevineMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue ProcessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10452
References
8
Case No. 09 Civ. 3043(PAE)
Regular Panel Decision

Hart v. Rick's Cabaret International, Inc.

This Opinion & Order addresses several pre-trial issues in a class action lawsuit brought by exotic dancers against Rick’s Cabaret NY and related entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning minimum wages and mandatory tip-out fees. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled that performance fees received by dancers cannot offset the Club’s liability for mandatory tip-out fees, which were deemed unlawful deductions under NYLL § 193(3)(a). The Court further affirmed that claims related to these tip-out fees are appropriate for class-wide resolution, consistent with the Mt. Clemens doctrine for calculating damages when employer records are insufficient. Finally, the defendants' motion for interlocutory appeal regarding class certification, the "reasonable customer" standard, and wage offset issues was denied, as the questions did not meet the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Consequently, a single trial is scheduled for April 27, 2015, to resolve all outstanding jury issues.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawMinimum WageTip-out FeesExotic DancersInterlocutory AppealClass CertificationDamages CalculationEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The unions, including the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), the Airline Pilots Association, International (ALPA), and the Transport Workers Union of America, moved to withdraw an adversary proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (Eastern) had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy following a labor dispute and strike, and the Bankruptcy Court issued temporary restraining orders against the unions for alleged illegal conduct. The unions argued for mandatory withdrawal, asserting that the case required substantial interpretation of non-Bankruptcy federal statutes like the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the Railway Labor Act, and constitutional amendments. Eastern opposed, contending that only routine application of established legal standards was needed. District Judge Kram denied the unions' motion, concluding that the issues did not meet the 'substantial and material consideration' standard for mandatory withdrawal, as they did not involve significant interpretation or issues of first impression regarding non-Bankruptcy federal laws.

Bankruptcy LawLabor UnionsEmployer-Employee RelationsInjunctionsMandatory WithdrawalFederal StatutesConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentDispute ResolutionDistrict Court
References
11
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05011 [231 AD3d 1262]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

Matter of Lebeau v. Meet Caregivers Inc.

Claimant Okina Lebeau, a certified nurse assistant, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging injuries to her right leg and knee from an assault by a coworker. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the injury did not arise out of employment. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, crediting the coworker's and manager's testimonies over claimant's. The Board determined that no physical altercation occurred and that the claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, a finding supported by substantial evidence.

Employment InjuryAssault ClaimCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardWorkplace IncidentClaimant TestimonyEmployer InvestigationFactual Determination
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meinhardt v. Flynn

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, initiated an action seeking a permanent mandatory injunction and damages to be reinstated to membership in a trades union, alleging improper exclusion or expulsion. The case involved an order framing issues of fact for a jury trial, which was subsequently modified by the court. Specific items were struck from the original order, and two new items were inserted to cover factual issues arising from denials in the complaint. The modified order was affirmed without costs, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to frame additional questions. The Special Term’s discretion in granting the order under section 430 of the Civil Practice Act was upheld by the court.

Mandatory InjunctionDamagesTrades Union MembershipImproper ExclusionExpulsionJury Trial IssuesOrder ModificationCivil Practice ActAppellate ReviewProcedural Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Independent School District v. Daniel

Walter Daniel and the Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local Union No. 1442 sued the Dallas Independent School District and its officials for wrongful termination of Daniel's employment, alleging it was due to his union membership, grievance presentations, and testimony in a prior lawsuit. The trial court granted a temporary mandatory injunction, reinstating Daniel, and found his discharge unlawful under Texas statutes and the State Constitution. The defendants appealed this injunction. The appellate court, presided over by Chief Justice Dixon, reversed the trial court's order, ruling that it erred by deciding the ultimate factual issues of the case in a preliminary hearing for a temporary injunction. The appellate court emphasized that a temporary injunction should not grant substantially all the relief obtainable in a final hearing.

wrongful terminationunion membershiptemporary injunctionlabor lawTexas Constitutionappellate proceduredue processfreedom of assemblyjudicial discretionadministrative remedies
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Elkins Lake Municipal Utility District

The State Department of Highways and Public Transportation appealed an order granting a mandatory temporary injunction that directed them to file condemnation proceedings. Appellees, Elkins Lake Municipal Utility District and Elkins Lake Recreation Corporation, alleged property damage from construction runoff constituted a taking without compensation and sought to compel condemnation. The appellate court found that Texas law (article 3269) does not authorize courts to compel state agencies to initiate condemnation actions. Furthermore, the injunction was deemed improper because it changed the status quo, granted the appellees all the relief sought prematurely, and an adequate remedy at law existed through an inverse condemnation claim for monetary damages. Consequently, the temporary injunction was dissolved, and the cause was reversed and remanded to the trial court.

CondemnationTemporary InjunctionInverse CondemnationProperty RightsGovernment LiabilityAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil StatutesDue ProcessEminent DomainSovereign Immunity
References
5
Case No. Adv. Proc. No. 16-01074 (SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

Core Litigation Trust ex rel. Kravitz v. Apollo Global Management, LLC (In re AOG Entertainment, Inc.)

The CORE Litigation Trust, as assignee of Debtors’ pre-petition secured lenders, initiated a proceeding in California State Court against a group of defendants. The Trust alleged inducing a breach of contract and intentional interference with contracts. The action was removed to federal court and subsequently transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Trust moved for mandatory abstention and remand to the California State Court. The Court granted the motion, finding it had non-core, 'related to' jurisdiction and that the action could be timely adjudicated in the state court.

Mandatory abstentionRemandBankruptcy jurisdictionNon-core jurisdictionRelated to jurisdictionTimely adjudicationState law claimsFederalismComityChoice of law
References
75
Showing 1-10 of 2,600 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