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. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

Plaintiff, a subcontractor for Massa Construction, Inc., initiated an action against defendant surety to secure payment on a labor and materials bond after Massa ceased payments due to alleged breaches by plaintiff. Defendant denied plaintiff's claim, asserting plaintiff materially breached its subcontract by failing to make pension contributions, provide releases, and obtain a separate payment bond. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of compliance and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a material breach. The court noted that alleged non-payments to suppliers only affected the subcontract price, not Massa's obligation to continue performance, and found no requirement for plaintiff to pay pension contributions to the Iron Workers District Council or obtain a separate payment bond from glaziers unions.

SubcontractorSurety BondPublic Improvement ProjectLabor and Materials BondPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractPension ContributionsPayment ObligationsGlaziers Unions
References
17
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. E2003-01685-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2004

Randall C. Hagy v. Commisssioner, Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Tennessee Distribution, Inc.

Randall C. Hagy was discharged from his employment with Tennessee Distribution, Inc. after refusing to handle materials he deemed offensive to his religious beliefs. The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development denied Hagy unemployment benefits, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Chancery Court for Sullivan County. Hagy appealed to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, raising issues concerning the evidentiary support for the decision, alleged procedural violations of his right to a jury trial, and violations of his constitutional rights, including freedom of religion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding substantial and material evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Hagy was discharged for misconduct due to his refusal to perform job duties. The court also determined that the unemployment compensation law was a neutral and generally applicable law, thus not violating Hagy's free exercise of religion, and declined to address the jury trial issue as it was not raised in the lower court.

Unemployment CompensationReligious DiscriminationEmployee MisconductRefusal to WorkFreedom of ReligionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawChancery CourtCourt of Appeals
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03424 [205 AD3d 1282]
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

Matter of Hossain (Groundanywhere LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Mohammed K. Hossain, a driver for Groundanywhere LLC, applied for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing work in 2017. The Department of Labor and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Hossain was an employee of Groundanywhere, making the company liable for unemployment insurance contributions. Groundanywhere appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the relationship between Groundanywhere and its drivers was materially indistinguishable from the employment relationship found in a similar Uber case. The court cited the substantial control Groundanywhere exercised over its drivers through its app, including screening, vehicle inspections, GPS provision, fare setting, and complaint handling, as evidence supporting the employment determination.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorGig EconomyRide-sharingEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of LaborUber Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
Case No. W2015-00796-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

Virginia H. Sanders v. Commissioner of Department of Labor and Workforce Development

Virginia H. Sanders appealed the denial of her unemployment compensation claim, stemming from her termination for alleged workplace misconduct at Baptist Memorial Hospital. Initially, the Department of Labor denied benefits, a decision reversed by the Appeals Tribunal. However, the Commissioner's Designee subsequently reversed the Tribunal, finding Sanders' actions constituted misconduct. The Chancery Court for Shelby County affirmed the Designee's decision. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld the Chancery Court's ruling, concluding that substantial and material evidence supported the finding that Sanders' actions, including escalating a dispute and making a statement interpreted as a threat, violated hospital policy and constituted work-related misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from unemployment benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsWorkplace MisconductEmployee DischargeAppeals Court DecisionAdministrative Law ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardEmployer Policy ViolationVerbal AltercationPro Se RepresentationTennessee Law
References
42
Case No. 2015-06-1358
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2016

Watson, Reginald v. Labor Smart

Reginald Watson, an employee, sustained head and back injuries in a work-related fall on July 18, 2015, while working for Labor Smart. Labor Smart failed to timely provide medical care, leading Watson to seek unauthorized treatment. The court found Labor Smart violated workers' compensation law by not offering a panel of physicians and referred the matter for a civil penalty. Despite some medical uncertainty regarding the exact cause of headaches, the court credited Watson's and his fiancée's testimony, concluding he was likely to prove his inability to work since September 1, 2015, due to the accident. Consequently, the court ordered Labor Smart to provide temporary total disability benefits to Mr. Watson from September 2, 2015, until he is no longer eligible.

Temporary Total DisabilityExpedited HearingMedical Treatment DelayWorkers' Compensation LawCausation of InjuryPost-Traumatic HeadachesSpinal InjuryEmployer NegligenceCivil PenaltyTennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dawn Joy Fashions, Inc. v. Commissioner of Labor

This case addresses the proof required to establish a violation of Labor Law § 352 (1) concerning unauthorized industrial homework. Dawn Joy Fashions, a garment manufacturer, was accused by the Commissioner of Labor of causing materials to be delivered for such homework, incurring civil penalties. The Industrial Board of Appeals upheld the penalties, applying a rebuttable strict liability standard. However, the Appellate Division overturned this, concluding the statute requires intent or acquiescence from the manufacturer. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the Board's strict liability interpretation was not supported by the statutory language and that substantial evidence was lacking to prove Dawn Joy Fashions intended or knew its materials would be used for industrial homework. The Court also noted that while the suggested 'minimum steps' could be relevant factors, they cannot be imposed as preconditions without proper rule-making.

Industrial HomeworkLabor Law ComplianceRebuttable Strict LiabilityStatutory InterpretationManufacturer LiabilityAppellate ReviewCivil PenaltiesEmployer ResponsibilityGarment IndustryProof of Intent
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rochester Club v. New York State Labor Relations Board

The petitioner, an employer, was charged with unfair labor practices by the New York State Labor Relations Board. Despite a trial examiner's recommendation to dismiss the complaint, the Board found unfair labor practices and ordered the matter reopened for further hearings to determine employee reinstatement and back pay. The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to review this Board order, which the Board moved to dismiss as non-final. The court held that under New York Labor Law, the Board's order, granting no relief and requiring further evidence, is an interlocutory order not subject to immediate judicial review. The court distinguished this from federal practice, where similar orders may be considered final, due to differences in state and federal procedural acts. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that a final order from the Board was still pending.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticeNew York State Labor Relations BoardArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 10,187 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