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. ADJ339175 (SRO 0132580)\nADJ625556 (STK 0203890)\nADJ614688 (STK 0210392)
Regular
Mar 03, 2012

JEFF BUSCH vs. NAPA PRINTING & GAPHICS, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns multiple claims filed by Jeff Busch against Napa Printing & Graphics and its insurer. A petition for reconsideration of a January 3, 2012 decision was filed. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew this petition. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnApplicantDefendantsNapa Printing & GraphicsPreferred Employers Insurance CompanyADJ339175ADJ625556
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2008

In the Matter of Ramroop v. Flexo-Craft Printing, Inc.

This case involves a motion filed by Sameer M. Ashar et al. seeking leave to appear as amici curiae in the appeal of Ronnie Ramroop against Flexo-Craft Printing, Inc. and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the submitted motion on April 28, 2008. On May 1, 2008, the Court issued its decision regarding this procedural request. The motion for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal was granted. The proposed brief was accepted, with instructions for service and filing within seven days.

Workers' CompensationAmici CuriaeMotion PracticeAppellate ProcedureNew York Court of AppealsProcedural RulingLeave to AppearBrief FilingAppeal GrantedLabour Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. v. Expromtorg International Corp.

The case involves a breach of contract action filed by General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. (GTP), a Connecticut corporation with offices in New York City, against Expromtorg International Corp. and its president, Guennadi Razouvaev, both Michigan residents. The defendants moved to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the original sales notes (OSN), and also sought to dismiss claims against Razouvaev for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff GTP opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion to stay arbitration, arguing that a later, unsigned settlement stipulation had supplanted the arbitration agreement and that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate through litigation. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Razouvaev, finding a prima facie case for piercing the corporate veil based on alleged fraudulent conduct. Ultimately, the Court denied GTP's cross-motion, ruling that the arbitration agreement in the OSN remained effective and that no waiver of arbitration had occurred, thus granting defendants' motion to stay the entire action pending arbitration.

Breach of ContractArbitrationPersonal JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingWaiver of ArbitrationDiversity JurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActSales NotesSettlement StipulationAlter Ego Doctrine
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Typographical Union No. 6 v. AA Job Printing

The case concerns a petition by New York Typographical Union No. 6 to confirm arbitration awards against employers AA Job Printing Corp. and The Jewish Press, Inc., for violations of a collective bargaining agreement. The employers cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the awards were not final and that a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) matter preempted the action. The court noted the employers' procedural defaults but favored a decision on the merits. District Judge ROBERT L. CARTER ruled that the arbitration awards were final and definite, and the federal court's jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act was independent of the NLRB's jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the employers' unsupported claim of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, confirming the arbitration awards, and denied the employers' cross-motion.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRASummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionNLRB PreemptionDefault JudgmentProcedural RulesEmployer-Union Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corporate Printing Co. v. New York Typographical Union No. 6

Corporate Printing Company, Inc. sought to stay an arbitration initiated by New York Typographical Union No. 6 concerning contributions to a Benefit and Productivity Fund and to dismiss the designated arbitrator, Walter L. Eisenberg. Corporate Printing also sought to initiate a second arbitration under "League Option A." The court considered whether Corporate Printing, having withdrawn from the 'League,' could exercise rights previously granted to the League under a 1975 collective bargaining agreement. The court ruled that Corporate Printing could not unilaterally dismiss the arbitrator nor invoke rights explicitly granted to the League. Claims of arbitrator bias and procedural non-compliance were deemed premature or matters for the arbitrator. Consequently, the initial arbitration proceeded, while Corporate Printing's requested arbitration was stayed.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployer-Union DisputeAgency LawEstoppelArbitrator BiasProcedural DefectsLabor LawFederal Court JurisdictionWithdrawal from Association
References
11
Case No. ADJ4415679 (OAK 0259031) ADJ2701101 (WCK0050594)
Regular
May 10, 2010

Stanley Sanders vs. REMEDY INTELLIGENT STAFFING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, OREGON STEEL MILLS, INC. dba NAPA PIPE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a judge's decision, ruling that Napa Pipe, a self-insured special employer, is liable for applicant Stanley Sanders' workers' compensation benefits. Despite an agreement between the general employer (Remedy Temp) and Napa Pipe attempting to limit liability to Remedy Temp's insurer (Reliance), Napa Pipe's joint and several liability as a special employer cannot be contractually eliminated. Because Napa Pipe's self-insurance was not excluded for special employees and constitutes "other insurance" under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), CIGA is relieved of its obligation to provide benefits following Reliance's insolvency. Therefore, Napa Pipe must now provide all workers' compensation benefits and administer the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStanley SandersRemedy Intelligent StaffingCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Insurance CompanyOregon Steel MillsNapa PipeADJ4415679ADJ2701101Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gray Line Motor Tours, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union Local 100

A motion to dispense with printing was granted, allowing the appeal to be heard upon the original record and typewritten or mimeographed appellants' points. Conditions included serving one copy of the appellants' points upon the attorney for respondents and filing 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies with the court by June 15, 1962, with notice of argument for June 21, 1962. Respondents' points were to be served and filed by June 20, 1962. The decision was concurred by Justices Breitel, Valente, McNally, Eager, and Steuer.

Motion practiceAppealProcedural orderPrinting requirementCourt procedureAppellate DivisionRecord on appealFiling deadlinesOral argumentSubmission
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hellman v. Program Printing, Inc.

This case involves a petition to confirm and enforce an arbitration award stemming from a labor dispute. The petitioner union accused Program Printing of violating a collective bargaining agreement by transferring work, leading to a layoff. An arbitrator found in favor of the union, ordering the company to cease work transfer and reinstate the employee with back pay. Although the employee was initially reinstated, he was not rehired the following season, prompting the union to seek court intervention. The court confirmed the original arbitration award but denied the request for enforcement, concluding that the new dispute regarding the employee's re-employment due to alleged changed circumstances should be resolved through further arbitration.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeWork TransferEmployee LayoffReinstatementCourt JurisdictionArbitration EnforcementArbitration ConfirmationFederal Courts
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Talyansky v. Mercury Print Productions, Inc.

Plaintiff Victoria Talyansky filed a complaint against Mercury Print Productions, Inc., alleging sex-based employment termination in violation of Title VII. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was untimely. Talyansky claimed she discovered a male replacement in 1997, nearly three years after her 1994 termination, and subsequently filed an EEOC charge which was dismissed due to exceeding the 300-day filing limit. The court found Talyansky's complaint time-barred, noting her failure to file the EEOC charge within the statutory period and her inability to sufficiently plead a basis for equitable tolling. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIITimelinessEEOC ChargeEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsSex DiscriminationMotion to DismissFederal CourtSecond Circuit
References
15
Case No. ADJ8514496
Regular
Aug 29, 2014

RONALD FLORES OPORTO vs. THE PRINT LAB, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Flores Oporto v. The Print Lab and The Hartford. The Board adopted and incorporated the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. They further extended great weight to the judge's credibility determination, as is customary in such matters. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8514496Van Nuys District OfficeTHE PRINT LABTHE HARTFORDRonald Flores Oporto
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 72 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