Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ1685474 (LAO 0883008) ADJ1092960 (LAO 0882982)

Regular

Dec 30, 2013

MARIA ZARAGOZA vs. MASCARRO LEATHER, INC., NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Maria Zaragoza's petition for reconsideration against Mascarro Leather, Inc. and its insurer. The dismissal was based on two primary grounds: the petition was filed and served untimely, and it was considered "skeletal" without substantive arguments. Additionally, the petition failed to meet the procedural requirement of serving all adverse parties as mandated by Labor Code section 5905.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelySkeletalLabor Code section 5905Adverse PartiesServiceDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeMascarro Leather

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Amity Leather Products Co. v. RGA Accessories, Inc.

Amity Leather Products Co. moved to hold RGA Accessories, Inc. in civil contempt for violating a prior injunction that prohibited RGA from using Amity's product photographs for its own competing products. Amity alleged RGA used a photo of its 'Macro bag' to promote the 'Petite Valise' through their joint venture, Smithy Accessories. The court found clear and convincing evidence of the violation, noting identical markings on the products in photographs. It rejected RGA's defenses of diligence and shifting blame to its joint venture partner. The court granted Amity's motion, ordering RGA to account for and pay profits from sales to J.C. Penney, cease further use of the promotional material, and issue a disclaimer to all recipients.

Contempt of CourtInjunction ViolationLanham ActFalse AdvertisingJoint Venture LiabilityCivil ContemptUnjust EnrichmentCease and DesistDisclaimerPhotographic Evidence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Gurga v. Carville Leather Co.

This case involves an appeal concerning Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically addressing whether the plaintiff, who suffered personal injuries while working, was a joint employee of the defendant and National Leather Corporation. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a joint venture existed between the two corporations, which would bar the plaintiff's recovery. The plaintiff countered, asserting sole employment by National Leather Corporation. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion, finding a material triable issue of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing evidence that supported the plaintiff's claim of separate entities.

Joint EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Summary Judgment MotionAppellate DecisionEmployer LiabilityJoint Venture DisputeEmployment Status DeterminationPersonal Injury CompensationNational Leather CorporationFulton County Court

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

J. & T. Cousins Co. v. Shoe & Leather Workers Industrial Union

The court considered an order that granted a motion to strike out the first separate defense presented in the appellant's answer. This order was subsequently affirmed by the judicial body. Additionally, the decision included the affirmation of ten dollars in costs and disbursements. Notably, the court did not provide a formal opinion for this decision. The panel of judges, consisting of Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Seudder, Tompkins, and Davis, JJ., all concurred with the outcome.

motion practiceappellate reviewaffirmative defensecourt costsconcurring judgesjudicial orderprocedural law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 04, 2012

Lebron v. SML Veteran Leather, LLC

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the defendant employer's motion for summary judgment, but this decision was reversed on appeal, and the motion was granted. The case centered on whether the employer's actions, specifically removing a safety screen from a hot leather stamping machine, constituted an "intentional wrong" under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act, thereby overcoming its exclusive remedy provisions. The majority opinion, referencing *Millison* and *Laidlow*, concluded that without prior incidents, deliberate deceit, or OSHA violations, the employer's conduct did not meet the "substantial certainty" standard for intentional wrong, noting the plaintiff's own failure to use proper tools. The dissenting opinion argued that factual issues remained, highlighting similarities to *Laidlow* and *Mull*, where disabling safety features were deemed sufficient to raise a question of intentional wrong, and emphasized that a lack of prior accidents is not the sole determinant.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActIntentional Wrong ExceptionNew Jersey LawWorkplace SafetySafety Guard RemovalOSHA ViolationsEmployer LiabilitySubstantial Certainty of InjuryExclusive Remedy Provisions

References

Case No. ADJ8621523

Regular

Oct 27, 2015

MEI YING CHEN vs. JOHNSON LEATHER CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Johnson Leather Corporation's petition for reconsideration of a findings and award. The original award found the defendant violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating an employee for intending to file a workers' compensation claim. The defendant sought reconsideration based on newly available witnesses, but the Board found the petition lacked specific legal arguments and evidentiary support from the record. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate why these witnesses were unavailable at the original trial or request a continuance.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminatory dischargePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardworkers' compensation injuryunavailable witnessesReport and Recommendationcredibility determinationWCJ credibilitymanagerial testimony

References

Case No. ADJ7281668, ADJ6962910

Regular

Dec 07, 2015

MILTON REYES vs. LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order grants reconsideration for a lien claimant in the cases of Milton Reyes v. LeeGin Creative Leather Products. The WCAB found it necessary to grant reconsideration to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues due to statutory time constraints and the need for a complete understanding to issue a just decision. All future correspondence regarding the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not through district offices or e-filing. The order also clarifies that trial-level documents unrelated to the petition should continue to be filed normally, with a specific notification requirement for proposed settlements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Trial Level Documents

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 20, 1996

Trustees of the Health & Welfare & the Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards v. Schlesinger Bros.

Plaintiffs, Trustees of the Health and Welfare and Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards and Esther Maiese, filed an action against Schlesinger Brothers, Inc. and the International Leather Goods, Plastics, Novelty and Service Workers Union, alleging violations of ERISA and LMRA. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached ERISA's 'sole benefit rule' by diverting contributions from the FJBC Funds to the International's Funds. They also alleged that Schlesinger violated the collective bargaining agreement under LMRA. The court determined that Schlesinger did not act as a fiduciary under ERISA and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the LMRA claim against the employer. Similarly, the court found that the International union was not subject to fiduciary duties under ERISA when engaged in collective bargaining. Consequently, the court granted Schlesinger's motion to dismiss the entire complaint and the International's motion to dismiss the ERISA claim, leaving only the LMRA claim against the International viable.

ERISALMRAFiduciary DutyCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissPension FundsHealth and Welfare FundsUnionEmployer LiabilityStanding

References

Case No. No. 95 Civ. 0119 (HB)

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 20, 1996

TRUSTEES OF HEALTH & WELFARE v. Schlesinger Bros.

Plaintiffs, Trustees of the Health and Welfare and Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards and Esther Maiese, filed an action against Schlesinger Brothers, Inc. and The International Leather Goods, Plastics, Novelty and Service Workers Union, alleging violations of ERISA and LMRA concerning the diversion of pension contributions. Schlesinger moved to dismiss the entire complaint, and the International moved to dismiss the ERISA claim. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted both motions, finding that neither defendant acted as a fiduciary under ERISA when negotiating the collective bargaining agreement, nor did plaintiffs have standing under LMRA § 301 as non-parties to the agreement. As a result, the complaint against Schlesinger was dismissed entirely, and the ERISA claim against the International was dismissed.

ERISA Fiduciary DutyLMRA ClaimsPension Fund ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissLack of StandingEmployer LiabilityUnion Fiduciary DutiesBenefit Plan AdministrationSole Benefit Rule

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 04, 2013

A.X.M.S. Corp. v. Friedman

This Memorandum Decision & Order addresses a motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed by A.X.M.S. Corp. (AXMS) against Marvin Friedman, Joyce Friedman, James Dong, and Masterpiece Leather Works, Ltd. The dispute stems from a declared "deadlock" within Masterpiece Leather Works' board of directors concerning two major policy issues: the restructuring of Masterpiece and its Chinese manufacturing partner, Artisan, to address Chinese transfer pricing/tax concerns, and the approval of the annual budget, specifically executive salaries for Friedman and Dong. AXMS sought a declaration that the deadlock was invalid and an injunction to prevent post-deadlock activities. The Court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that AXMS failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the improper declaration of a deadlock on either issue, and also failed to prove irreparable harm, noting that any alleged harm could be remedied by monetary damages. AXMS had previously elected to purchase Friedman and Dong’s interests in Masterpiece for $12 million.

Corporate governanceShareholder disputeBoard deadlockPreliminary injunctionContract interpretationGood faithIrreparable harmCorporate restructuringTransfer pricingTax compliance

References

Showing 1-10 of 18 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ1685474 (LAO 0883008) ADJ1092960 (LAO 0882982)

Regular

Dec 30, 2013

MARIA ZARAGOZA vs. MASCARRO LEATHER, INC., NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelySkeletalLabor Code section 5905Adverse PartiesServiceDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeMascarro Leather

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Amity Leather Products Co. v. RGA Accessories, Inc.

Contempt of CourtInjunction ViolationLanham ActFalse AdvertisingJoint Venture LiabilityCivil ContemptUnjust EnrichmentCease and DesistDisclaimerPhotographic Evidence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Gurga v. Carville Leather Co.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

J. & T. Cousins Co. v. Shoe & Leather Workers Industrial Union

motion practiceappellate reviewaffirmative defensecourt costsconcurring judgesjudicial orderprocedural law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 04, 2012

Lebron v. SML Veteran Leather, LLC

References

Case No. ADJ8621523

Regular

Oct 27, 2015

MEI YING CHEN vs. JOHNSON LEATHER CORPORATION

References

Case No. ADJ7281668, ADJ6962910

Regular

Dec 07, 2015

MILTON REYES vs. LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 20, 1996

Trustees of the Health & Welfare & the Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards v. Schlesinger Bros.

ERISALMRAFiduciary DutyCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissPension FundsHealth and Welfare FundsUnionEmployer LiabilityStanding

References

Case No. No. 95 Civ. 0119 (HB)

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 20, 1996

TRUSTEES OF HEALTH & WELFARE v. Schlesinger Bros.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 04, 2013

A.X.M.S. Corp. v. Friedman

Corporate governanceShareholder disputeBoard deadlockPreliminary injunctionContract interpretationGood faithIrreparable harmCorporate restructuringTransfer pricingTax compliance

References

Showing 1-10 of 18 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.