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
Jun 09, 1999

Longo v. Metro-North Commuter RailRoad

A plaintiff, a Metro-North employee with flagging duties on a construction site managed by Yonkers Contracting Company, sustained injuries after falling through a hole. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion on Labor Law claims and granted Yonkers' cross-motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court reinstated the Labor Law claims against Yonkers, ruling the plaintiff was an integral part of the construction crew entitled to statutory protection. However, the court granted summary judgment to Metro-North, dismissing the plaintiff's Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) claim due to federal preemption. The decision emphasized that Labor Law violations cannot form part of a FELA action.

Workers' CompensationConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law 240Labor Law 241Labor Law 241-aLabor Law 200Federal Employers' Liability ActFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor Industrial Board of Appeals

The petitioner challenged the Board's determination to award 1987 vacation benefits to former employees terminated in late 1986, arguing against the application of the Allentown, Pennsylvania plant's vacation policy and its interpretation. The court found ample evidence to support applying the Allentown policy, but annulled the Board's determination in part due to an erroneous interpretation of the policy's eligibility requirement for continuous service as of December 31. Specifically, the Board's award of 1987 vacation benefits to workers terminated prior to December 31, 1986, was annulled, while the petitioner conceded its obligation for two workers terminated on December 31. The determination was unanimously modified and confirmed in part, and annulled in part.

Vacation BenefitsEmployee TerminationPolicy InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate DivisionEligibilityContinuous ServiceLabor LawNew York
References
0
Case No. M2021-01193-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2023

Robert Crotty v. Mark Flora, M.D. (Concur in Part and Dissent in Part)

This is a dissenting opinion regarding an interlocutory appeal that centers on the interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-119 and its impact on the collateral source rule in health care liability actions. The dissenting judge argues that this statute abrogates the collateral source rule, asserting that recoverable damages should be limited to the actual economic losses suffered, specifically the amounts actually paid by plaintiffs or their insurance, rather than the full, undiscounted medical bills. The opinion emphasizes that the statutory language, particularly "actual economic losses suffered" and "paid or payable," clearly supports this interpretation. Furthermore, it references legislative intent behind the Medical Malpractice Act, which aimed to control healthcare costs, as a rationale for a strict construction of the statute.

Medical MalpracticeCollateral Source RuleStatutory InterpretationHealth Care Liability ActActual Economic LossesDamagesInsurance LawPretrial OrdersTennessee Supreme CourtDissenting Opinion
References
27
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2007

Buffalo Teachers Federation, Inc. v. Board of Education

This case involves an appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award stemming from a dispute between a petitioner and the City School District of the City of Buffalo. The dispute began when the District unilaterally altered health insurance providers, violating a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). An arbitrator found the District in violation and ordered reinstatement of laid-off teachers. The Supreme Court initially confirmed the award. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the court affirmed the part of the award concerning the CBA violation but vacated the part mandating teacher reinstatement, finding the arbitrator exceeded his authority by granting a benefit not explicitly in the CBA.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementHealth Insurance BenefitsTeacher LayoffsArbitrator AuthorityPublic PolicyJudgment ModificationErie CountyUnilateral Contract ChangeLabor Dispute
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1967

Mohawk Maintenance Co. v. Drake

The Supreme Court, Queens County, issued an order on March 29, 1967, which initially denied an appellant's motion to intervene in an action. The action itself involved a plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment against a defendant labor union to avoid arbitration of certain grievances. The appellant, having been part of the initial arbitration proceeding, desired the plaintiff to remain in arbitration and sought to intervene in the declaratory judgment action. The appellate court found merit in granting intervention under CPLR 1012 or 1013 but lacked the power to do so because the appellant failed to comply with CPLR 1014. Consequently, the original order was modified to allow the appellant leave to renew its motion upon proper papers, and as modified, the order was affirmed without costs.

Motion to InterveneCPLR 1012CPLR 1013CPLR 1014Declaratory JudgmentArbitrationLabor UnionLeave to RenewAffirmed as ModifiedProcedural Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1997

McCauley v. McCauley

The case concerns a motion by the defendant, a former husband, to modify his child support and maintenance obligations following the termination of his employment. Justice Vito C. Caruso, of the Supreme Court, Schenectady County, found that the defendant, despite losing his $41,000 per year research scientist position, had not made a diligent effort to find new employment. The court imputed an annual income of $25,000 to the defendant and, after careful consideration of the Child Support Standards Act and the Matter of Holmes v Holmes decision, determined that a $19 per week child support award would be unjust. Consequently, the court modified the maintenance obligation from $190 to $95 per week and set child support at $95 per week, with both parties sharing health care costs, to ensure the children's needs and standard of living were maintained. The defendant's motion was granted in part, resulting in a modification of the original September 23, 1994 divorce judgment.

Child Support ModificationMaintenance ModificationImputed IncomeJob Search DiligenceParental ObligationsDivorce JudgmentSchenectady CountyChild Support Standards ActStandard of LivingBest Interests of the Child
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malecki v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Paul E. Malecki, an ironworker, was injured when a 2,000-pound bundle of steel fell onto his foot. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200 (1), and common-law negligence against The Pike Company, Inc., the general contractor, and other defendants. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, but denied dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action. The court also denied conditional summary judgment on Pike’s common-law indemnification claim against Niagara Erecting but properly denied conditional summary judgment on Pike's contractual indemnification claim. The appeals court modified the order, affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and further ruled that the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action should also be dismissed, and conditional summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Niagara Erecting should have been granted to Pike. The order was modified accordingly and affirmed.

Ironworker InjuryForklift AccidentConstruction Site SafetyElevation RisksCommon-Law NegligenceIndemnification ClaimGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 04-82-00017-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1982

Ex Parte Hovermale

Chester B. Hovermale, the relator, was confined for contempt due to his failure to pay his former wife, Elizabeth M. Hovermale, a portion of his military retirement pay as mandated by their divorce decree. He initiated a habeas corpus proceeding, contending that the division of military retirement benefits in the divorce decree was void, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in McCarty v. McCarty. The Court of Appeals of Texas, en banc, distinguished McCarty and Hisquierdo based on varying types of preemption. The court declined to retroactively apply McCarty, emphasizing the doctrines of res judicata, finality of judgments, and the importance of stability in family law. Consequently, the court denied Hovermale's request for relief and ordered his remand to the custody of the Sheriff of Bexar County, explicitly rejecting the precedent set by Ex parte Buckhanan.

Preemption DoctrineSupremacy ClauseRetroactive Application of LawRes JudicataFinality of JudgmentsMilitary Retirement BenefitsCommunity Property LawHabeas CorpusContempt of CourtDivorce Decrees
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2001

Akgul v. Prime Time Transportation, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by Prime Time Transportation, Inc., and its principals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. The plaintiffs, a group of drivers, alleged breach of franchise agreements and violations of Labor Law article 6, contending they were employees. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the employee status issue, giving preclusive effect to a prior NLRB determination. The appellate court ruled that the Supreme Court erred in applying collateral estoppel to the NLRB's ultimate conclusion on employee status, as it constituted a mixed question of law and fact imbued with policy considerations. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order by deleting the provision granting the cross-motion and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a redetermination of employee status under Labor Law article 6. Additionally, the court granted Prime Time's motion to dismiss the fourth and seventh causes of action related to fraudulent inducement and breach of an assurance of discontinuance, respectively, but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the fifth cause of action under General Business Law § 349.

Breach of contractLabor LawEmployee statusIndependent contractorSummary judgmentCollateral estoppelAdministrative agenciesNational Labor Relations BoardFranchise agreementsAppellate review
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 5,021 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