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

Merced Irrigation District v. Barclays Bank PLC

Merced Irrigation District sued Barclays Bank PLC, alleging market manipulation in electricity index prices, violating federal antitrust laws (Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and New York's unjust enrichment law. Barclays moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found Merced had standing and that fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations. The motion was granted for the Section 1 Sherman Act claim due to a lack of alleged concerted action, and for the unjust enrichment claim due to the absence of a direct relationship between the parties. However, the motion was denied for the Section 2 Sherman Act monopolization claim and the UCL claim, allowing those to proceed. Merced was given leave to amend the dismissed claims.

Antitrust LawMarket ManipulationElectricity MarketsSherman Act Section 1Sherman Act Section 2California Unfair Competition LawUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFraudulent Concealment
References
85
Case No. ADJ3582743 (STK 0215397)
Regular
Apr 11, 2014

KERI LARSEN vs. MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

This case concerns defendant Modesto Irrigation District's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the administrative law judge erred in using an incorrect impairment number for calculating permanent disability. The Board amended the award to reflect an 18% permanent disability rating, based on the agreed medical evaluator's opinion regarding lateral epicondylitis and decreased grip, not nerve entrapment. The Board also corrected the finding for future medical treatment to the right arm and elbow, aligning with the amended disability rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardModesto Irrigation DistrictKerri Larsenpermanent disability ratingAMA GuidesAlmarez-Guzmanstraight ratingReport And Recommendation On Petition For ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorAME
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mount Sinai Union Free School District v. Board of Education Port Jefferson Public Schools

Mount Sinai and Port Jefferson School Districts had a long-standing contract for Mt. Sinai to send its high school students to Port Jefferson. Following a deterioration of relations and an increase in Mt. Sinai's student population, Mt. Sinai decided to build its own high school. New York Education Law § 3014-c was enacted, requiring sending districts to consider teachers from receiving districts as their own employees. Mt. Sinai challenged this statute, alleging various constitutional violations. The court dismissed claims by teacher, parent/student, and taxpayer plaintiffs for lack of standing, and then dismissed the remaining Contract Clause claim by Mt. Sinai, granting summary judgment to the defendants.

School DistrictsTeacher TenureEducation LawContract ClauseDue ProcessEqual ProtectionStandingAbstention DoctrineSummary JudgmentFederal Civil Procedure
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Candor Central School District v. American Arbitration Ass'n

The Candor Central School District (the district) applied to the court for an order restraining the American Arbitration Association (AAA) from proceeding with arbitration. This application was made while a CPLR 7503 proceeding to stay arbitration, involving the district and the Candor Faculty Association, was pending in another court. The district argued against the need for a temporary restraining order in the CPLR 7503 proceeding, citing judicial time and client costs. The AAA countered that its impartiality would be compromised if it were named an adverse party and stressed the importance of proceeding with arbitration unless explicitly stayed by stipulation or court order. The court ultimately denied the district's application, concluding that restraining the AAA was inappropriate and advising the district to seek relief within the pending CPLR 7503 proceeding.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCPLR 7503American Arbitration Association (AAA)Injunctive ReliefJudicial InterventionArbitration RulesCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial RestraintProcedural Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Board of Education of Watertown City School District & Watertown Education Ass'n

This case consolidates two appeals, 'The Watertown Dispute' and 'The Indian River Dispute,' concerning public sector arbitration under New York's Taylor Law. Both cases involve education associations and school districts in disputes over changes to health insurance benefits, specifically increased employee copayments. The associations filed grievances, which the districts denied, leading to demands for arbitration. Lower courts granted stays of arbitration, applying the 'Liverpool two-step' protocol and finding the disputes non-arbitrable. The Court of Appeals reverses these decisions, clarifying that the 'Liverpool' protocol should be applied without an anti-arbitrational presumption. The Court emphasizes that the merits of a grievance are for the arbitrator, and a court's role is merely to determine if there's a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the collective bargaining agreement. Finding that health insurance benefits are clearly related to the CBAs, the Court compels arbitration in both cases.

Public Sector ArbitrationTaylor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrabilityHealth Insurance BenefitsCopayment IncreasesLiverpool Two-Step ProtocolJudicial Review of ArbitrationPresumption of ArbitrabilityCourt of Appeals (NY)
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agyeman v. Roosevelt Union Free School District

Plaintiff Ak-ousa Agyeman, an elementary school teacher, filed a civil rights action against the Roosevelt Union Free School District and several individuals, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Civil Service Law § 75-b. Agyeman claimed she was retaliated against for engaging in protected speech, specifically through internal emails and a letter to the New York State Education Department, regarding student needs, District policies, and alleged legal violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing her speech was not constitutionally protected. The Court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that Agyeman's speech was made as a public employee performing official duties, not as a private citizen, and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, the Section 1983 claim was dismissed, and the remaining state law claim was dismissed without prejudice for re-filing in state court.

First Amendment retaliationPublic employee speechCivil rights actionSummary judgmentNew York State law claimDismissal without prejudiceTeacher employment disputeSchool district liabilityFreedom of speechOfficial duties
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leon v. Port Washington Union Free School District

The case of America Leon v. Port Washington Union Free School District involved plaintiff America Leon suing her former employer for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and for breach of collective bargaining agreements. Leon claimed she worked uncompensated pre-shift hours and during meal breaks. The District moved to dismiss both claims, arguing insufficient pleading for the FLSA claim and issues of standing, timeliness, and notice for the breach of contract claim. The court, presided over by District Judge Wexler, denied the District's motion to dismiss in its entirety, determining that Leon's complaint provided sufficient factual allegations regarding her regular work schedule and uncompensated overtime to state a plausible FLSA claim. The court also found the breach of contract claim adequately alleged, declining to consider extraneous submissions and preserving the District's right to renew its arguments as a motion for summary judgment after discovery.

FLSAovertime wagesbreach of contractmotion to dismisscollective bargaining agreementuncompensated workfederal courtSecond Circuitemployment lawwage dispute
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Young v. Central Square Central School District

Plaintiff sued Central Square Central School District under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discrimination due to her multiple sclerosis diagnosis and the District's failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The District moved for summary judgment, arguing collateral estoppel from a prior administrative hearing that found Plaintiff unfit to teach, and also sought to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel. The Court denied the summary judgment motion, ruling that collateral estoppel did not bar the litigation of reasonable accommodation issues. However, the motion to disqualify Plaintiff's law firm, O'Hara & O'Connell, was granted because an associate had previously worked on the District's defense in related matters, creating an appearance of impropriety. Consequently, Plaintiff must secure new legal representation or proceed pro se within ninety days.

Americans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActReasonable AccommodationMultiple SclerosisEmployment DiscriminationCollateral EstoppelAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestSummary JudgmentTeacher Disability
References
26
Case No. 06 Civ. 6377(WHP)
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2009

New York District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Perimeter Interiors, Inc.

This Memorandum & Order addresses defendants' objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on damages for unpaid fringe benefit contributions under ERISA and LMRA. Plaintiffs, various Carpenters Benefit Funds, had previously secured summary judgment against Perimeter Interiors and its president, Susan Reidy, for operating a secret bank account to evade contributions. The Magistrate Judge recommended a total award of $2,508,324.84. The District Court adopted the report, affirming findings of covered work, the alter ego status of Perimeter and Speedy Enterprises, and the awards for attorney's and auditor's fees, with a minor correction to principal damages. The Court denied defendants' objections, directing entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the full recommended amount.

ERISALMRAEmployee BenefitsFringe Benefit ContributionsSummary JudgmentDamages InquestMagistrate Judge ReportObjections DeniedAlter Ego DoctrineUnpaid Contributions
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson v. Greenburgh Central School District Number 7

Lawson, a school bus driver for Shore Transportation Co., was dismissed after the Central School District alleged erratic driving and demanded his removal. Shore had a contract with the district giving the latter approval rights over drivers. Lawson initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, converted to a declaratory judgment action, to annul his dismissal and compel the appellants (Central School District and Shore) to grant an evidentiary hearing. The appellants' motion to dismiss was denied. The court affirmed the denial, ruling that the school district's substantial contractual and statutory control over driver employment, even without direct employment, could entitle Lawson to procedural due process protections, thus stating a valid cause of action for a hearing.

Procedural Due ProcessEmployment TerminationDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78School Bus DriverContractual ControlEvidentiary HearingAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstitutional Rights
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,019 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