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. ADJ10303237
Regular
Oct 26, 2016

MARLENE COLLINS vs. F.CORBY DALE AND ELIZABETH DALE

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Marlene Collins against F.Corby Dale and Elizabeth Dale. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing this petition. The dismissal is due to the petitioner having withdrawn their request for removal. Consequently, the Board has formally closed the matter of the petition.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMarlene CollinsF.Corby DaleElizabeth DaleADJ10303237Fresno District OfficeMarguerite Sweeney
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harvey v. Marlene Industries Corp.

The National Labor Relations Board, through its Acting Regional Director William K. Harvey, sought an injunction under NLRA Section 10(j) to prevent Marlene Industries Corporation from distributing proceeds from an asset sale. This was in anticipation of a final Board decision on unfair labor practice charges, which an Administrative Law Judge had found against Marlene. The long-standing labor dispute originated in 1970 with employee discharges and subsequent picketing. The court, however, denied the injunction, concluding that there was no demonstrated danger of irreparable harm. Furthermore, the court found that the core issues had been previously addressed and resolved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1975, ruling that Marlene's actions in 1970 were not unlawful, and thus, extraordinary relief was unwarranted.

Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticesNational Labor Relations ActAsset SaleRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSixth Circuit Court of AppealsBack Pay ClaimsIrreparable HarmSection 10(j)
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2003

Collins v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Petitioner Odessa Collins, an employee of the City of New York Human Resources Administration, challenged NYCERS' denial of her application to purchase premembership retirement service credit for her employment at various day-care centers between 1970 and 1982. Collins argued that her service at HRA-licensed day-care centers, which were under contract with the City, should qualify for credit under Retirement and Social Security Law § 609. NYCERS denied the application, stating that day-care center employees were not on the city payroll and therefore not eligible for NYCERS membership or credit. The court upheld NYCERS' determination, finding it rational and not arbitrary or capricious, as Collins' employment was not

Retirement Service CreditPublic EmploymentDay Care CentersNYCERSPre-Membership ServiceCity PayrollParticipating EmployerArbitrary and CapriciousRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Law
References
11
Case No. CV-23-0409
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jennel Collins

Claimant Jennel Collins appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision that found the employer, New York City Transit Authority, timely filed a notice of controversy. Collins sustained injuries at work and filed a claim for benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found the employer failed to timely controvert, waiving defenses and establishing the claim. However, the WCB modified this, ruling that the 25-day period for controverting under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) was not triggered because the case was not indexed, making the employer's subsequent controversion timely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for further proceedings because the Board failed to address the claimant's arguments regarding the binding nature of the employer's initial injury reports indicating acceptance of liability, and if subsequent actions violated Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (a) or 12 NYCRR 300.37 (c).

Workers' CompensationNotice of ControversyTimelinessWaiver of DefensesBoard IndexingPrima Facie Medical EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Collins v. Promark Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Terry Collins, an employee of the government’s National Park Service, was injured on Ellis Island while using a stump grinder manufactured by defendant Promark Products, Inc. Plaintiff, who had been receiving workers’ compensation benefits, initiated a products liability action against Promark. Promark subsequently impleaded the United States government, alleging negligence in machine maintenance and inadequate instruction. The government moved for summary judgment, contending that New Jersey law should apply under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which would bar the third-party action as workers' compensation would be the sole liability. The court examined an 1833 agreement between New Jersey and New York, consented to by Congress, establishing jurisdictional and territorial limits. The court concluded that New York law applies to the areas on Ellis Island where the tort occurred, granting New York exclusive jurisdiction despite New Jersey's property rights to the underwater land. Consequently, the government’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityFederal Tort Claims ActWorkers' CompensationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentInterstate CompactEllis IslandGovernment Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Collins v. County of Monroe Industrial Development Agency

Plaintiff Curtis Collins, a construction worker, was injured when a concrete floor collapsed, causing him to fall. He was working at an elevated site without safety devices. The central issue was whether Midtown Holdings Corporation (Midtown) qualified as an 'owner' under Labor Law § 240 (1), despite having granted a permanent easement to the City of Rochester and engaging in a sale and lease-back agreement with COMIDA. The court found that the sale and lease-back was a financing mechanism, not a genuine transfer of ownership, and Midtown retained control over construction circumstances. Therefore, Midtown was deemed an owner under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Construction AccidentLabor LawElevated WorksiteSafety DevicesOwner LiabilityPermanent EasementSale and Lease BackFinancing MechanismWorkers' CompensationSummary Judgment
References
5
Case No. CV-23-0409
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

Matter of Collins v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Jennel Collins, a cleaner for the New York City Transit Authority, sustained work-related injuries and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, the employer's report indicated acceptance of liability, but they later controverted the claim, arguing untimeliness due to the case not being indexed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The WCLJ initially found the employer waived defenses, but the Board reversed, finding the notice of controversy timely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter to the Board. The court found that the Board failed to address the claimant's arguments regarding the employer's binding reports of injury and potential violations of Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (a) and 12 NYCRR 300.37 (c), thus precluding meaningful judicial review.

Workers' Compensation LawNotice of ControversyTimeliness of FilingPrima Facie Medical EvidenceCausal RelationshipAdministrative AppealRemittalWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer DefensesAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06487 [153 AD3d 1453]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2017

Matter of Collins v. Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept.

Claimant Kevin P. Collins, a deputy sheriff, sustained a work-related right knee injury in November 2011, leading to an established workers' compensation claim and disability benefits. The self-insured employer paid full weekly wages during the disability period (November 29, 2011, to May 30, 2012) and filed a timely reimbursement request. The parties stipulated that claimant had a 21% schedule loss of use of his right leg and that the employer could "take credit for all prior payments." Claimant sought a hearing to determine if the employer was entitled to full reimbursement from the schedule award or if a late payment penalty should be imposed for underpayment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed the employer's right to full reimbursement, finding the stipulation's language unambiguous and consistent with Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's interpretation of the stipulation was supported by substantial evidence and that the employer had not waived its right to reimbursement.

ReimbursementAdvance PaymentsSchedule Loss of UseStipulationEmployer CreditDisability BenefitsJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationTimely Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Collins v. County of Monroe

Plaintiff Ellen M. Collins sued her former employer, the County of Monroe, alleging race and gender discrimination under Title VII and Fourteenth Amendment violations after being laid off during budget cuts in 2004. Collins argued that her layoff was discriminatory and challenged the seniority system. The court granted the County's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of discriminatory motive in the layoff or the application of the seniority system. The court also dismissed Collins' discrimination and constitutional claims with prejudice, rejecting her 'continuing violation' argument for time-barred promotion claims and finding no municipal policy or deliberate indifference to support constitutional violations.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRace DiscriminationTitle VIIFourteenth AmendmentSummary JudgmentLayoffSeniority SystemBudget CutsCivil Rights
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2005

Collins v. Glenwood Management Corp.

Plaintiff Lance Collins, injured at a Manhattan construction site, initiated an action in Bronx County based on claimed residency. Defendants moved to change venue to Orange County, presenting evidence like DMV records and an affidavit from a Bronx building owner suggesting Collins resided in Orange County. Plaintiffs opposed, offering tax returns and affidavits asserting Bronx residency, and arguing the defendants' motion was untimely. The IAS court initially denied the venue change, deeming it untimely. However, the appellate court reversed, finding the defendants' motion timely given the conflicting evidence on Collins' residency, and remanded the case for a hearing to resolve these factual disputes.

VenueChange of VenueResidency DisputeAppellate DivisionBronx CountyOrange CountyCivil ProcedureCPLRCredibilityFactual Issues
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 69 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