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. 79 Civ. 1536, 79 Civ. 1570
Regular Panel Decision

Iberia Air Lines v. National Mediation Board

Iberia Air Lines moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it lawfully changed employee terms on February 23, 1979, after negotiations with the IAM deadlocked. The core issue was whether the IAM's request for mediation to the National Mediation Board (NMB) was timely under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) Section 6, which mandates a ten-day window for such requests after conference termination. The NMB's offices were intermittently closed due to a federal holiday and a snowstorm, and the IAM's formal request was received after the ten-day period. The court granted Iberia's motion, ruling that the RLA's plain language allows carriers to implement changes if mediation services are not invoked within the specified ten days, rejecting the government's arguments for an extended status quo or tolling of the period due to unforeseen closures or a mere telephone call.

Railway Labor ActNational Mediation BoardCollective BargainingLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentUnilateral ChangeStatus QuoTimelinessStatutory InterpretationAir Carrier
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Canada v. National Mediation Board

Plaintiff Air Canada sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the National Mediation Board (NMB) from conducting a representation election among its passenger service employees, alleging several violations of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The court denied Air Canada's application, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to review most of the NMB's alleged errors and that Air Canada failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits for the one reviewable claim (failure to investigate). The court also found an insufficient showing of irreparable harm, noting that staying the election would cause greater damage than allowing it to proceed. The NMB's decisions on employee eligibility, cut-off dates, and craft/class determinations were generally upheld or deemed outside the court's review scope.

Temporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionNational Mediation BoardRailway Labor ActRepresentation ElectionJudicial Review LimitsIrreparable HarmCraft or Class DeterminationEmployee EligibilityElection Cut-off Date
References
15
Case No. 21 MC 97
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2009

In Re September 11 Litigation

District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein accepted the mediator's report concerning the extensive settlements achieved in the wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits arising from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. These cases, filed under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (ATSSSA) in the Southern District of New York, involved victims and their families suing airlines and aviation-related companies. Mediator Sheila L. Birnbaum, assisted by Thomas E. Fox, successfully resolved 72 out of 95 cases through a meticulous mediation process that addressed complex legal issues, sensitive security information (SSI) discovery, and varying state laws governing damages. The court's order highlights the challenges faced in these mass torts, including balancing claimant equity, ensuring fair contingent fees, and navigating the unique circumstances of the litigation, ultimately leading to approximately $500 million in aggregate settlements.

September 11th AttacksWrongful DeathPersonal Injury LitigationMass TortsMediationSettlement NegotiationsAir Transportation Safety and System Stabilization ActVictim Compensation FundSensitive Security InformationDamages Discovery
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2006

Laura I.M. v. Hillside Children's Center

The case concerns infant plaintiffs who were sexually abused by Sergey Reznikov, a patient at Hillside Children’s Center, during unaccompanied weekend home visits. Reznikov had a documented history of pedophilia, for which he was admitted to Hillside. Plaintiffs sued Hillside, asserting liability for negligent failure to exercise professional judgment in allowing these home visits without properly assessing supervision capabilities. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment on liability for the plaintiffs, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The affirmation was based on Hillside's failure to discuss supervision with Reznikov's mother and a social worker's omission to inform a psychiatrist of critical information regarding Reznikov's contact with the victims.

negligenceprofessional judgmentchild sexual abusetreatment facility liabilitypedophiliasupervision failurehome visit policysummary judgmentappellate affirmancephysician-patient privilege
References
5
Case No. 14-15-00614-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2015

Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc.

This case concerns an objection filed by Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. to a mediation order issued by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. Berkel argues that the mediation for Appellant Maxim Crane Works, L.P.'s appeal regarding indemnity and defense costs is premature. This appeal stems from a prior trial where Berkel was found 90% responsible and Maxim 10% responsible for a construction accident, resulting in a $43 million judgment. Maxim settled its portion with the plaintiffs and is pursuing indemnity and breach of contract claims against Berkel. The core legal dispute involves the interpretation and application of Chapter 151 of the Texas Insurance Code, specifically concerning anti-indemnity provisions and the exception for employee claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, which impacts Berkel's potential liability for Maxim's defense and indemnity costs.

Construction LawIndemnity ClaimsTexas Insurance CodeWorkers' Compensation ActAppellate ProcedureMediation ObjectionBreach of ContractNegligence LiabilityDefense CostsFinal Judgment Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1990

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Valenzano

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund initiated an action against Marcello Valenzano, doing business as ABC Contracting Co., for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. The defendant failed to comply with discovery requests, leading to an order conditionally striking his answer and later, a default judgment. Defendant's pro se motion to vacate the default judgment, asserting non-receipt of documents and partial compliance, was denied by the IAS court. The court found service proper and noted the defendant's failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding the lower court acted within its discretion to strike the answer for willful failure to comply with discovery, considering the lack of reasonable excuse and meritorious defense.

Default JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsFailure to ComplyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceVacate JudgmentMeritorious DefenseService of ProcessAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureSupreme Court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Transportation Union v. DELAWARE AND HUDSON RAILWAY, CO.

This case addresses a labor dispute between the United Transportation Union (UTU), Delaware & Hudson Railway Company (D & H), and the National Mediation Board (NMB) under the Railway Labor Act. UTU sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting its right to self-help (strike) after purportedly terminating collective bargaining negotiations with D & H. The NMB intervened, attempting to compel mediation, which UTU resisted, claiming NMB lacked jurisdiction due to proper termination of conferences. The Court, denying UTU's motion for summary judgment, clarified that while mutual termination is not required, an unequivocal termination and good faith bargaining are prerequisites for exercising self-help. Ultimately, the court found genuine issues of material fact existed regarding both the unequivocal termination of conferences and UTU's good faith bargaining efforts, thus precluding summary judgment.

Railway Labor ActCollective BargainingNegotiation TerminationSelf-HelpMediationSummary JudgmentGood Faith BargainingLabor DisputeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. 2024-60-5319
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2025

Anderson, Phyllis D. v. SP Plus, Inc.

The employee, Phyllis D. Anderson, reported a left knee injury at work and subsequently filed a petition for benefit determination. After unsuccessful mediation, her attorney withdrew. The employee then failed to appear for multiple status hearings and a show cause hearing, and did not respond to the employer's motion to dismiss. Consequently, the trial court dismissed her petition with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The employee appealed this decision, but failed to file a brief or offer substantive arguments explaining how the trial court erred. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the dismissal for failure to prosecute was within the trial court's discretion, and the issue of dismissal with prejudice was waived due to lack of argument from the employee.

Workers' Compensation AppealsDismissal with PrejudiceFailure to ProsecuteAttorney WithdrawalShow Cause HearingEmployee Non-AppearanceAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionKnee InjuryMediation Failure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jensen v. Lawler

Lisbet Pia Jensen filed a lawsuit in 2000 under maritime jurisdiction, claiming injuries sustained as a seaman due to the Lawlers' failure to provide a safe workplace and an unseaworthy vessel. A jury awarded Jensen $200,000 for the Lawlers' failure to provide maximum cure but found in favor of the Lawlers on issues of negligence and unseaworthiness, also determining Jensen was 35% contributorily negligent. Jensen subsequently sought $80,000 in attorney's fees and $30,000 in costs. The Court denied the request for attorney's fees, citing the 'American Rule' in maritime disputes and the absence of evidence for the defendants' 'bad faith.' After scrutinizing the claimed costs, disallowing various expenditures such as videographer fees, attorney travel, mediation fees, and reducing expert witness fees, the Court ultimately granted Jensen costs totaling $4,358.60.

Maritime LawAttorney FeesCourt CostsMaintenance and CureSeaman's InjuryContributory NegligenceUnseaworthiness ClaimJones ActFederal Civil ProcedureExpert Witness Fees
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 4,720 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