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. Axelrod I, Axelrod II, Veit
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1985

Society of the New York Hospital v. Axelrod

This case concerns the Commissioner of Health of New York State's establishment of Medicaid, Blue Cross, workers' compensation, and no-fault insurance reimbursement rates for hospitals. In response to increased labor costs for hospitals affiliated with the League of Voluntary Hospitals, SHIF (Supplemental Hospital Index Factor) benefits were introduced to provide waivers based on actual increased labor costs. Eligibility for SHIF was determined by an "affordability" factor, utilizing a current ratio analysis where a ratio of current assets to liabilities less than 1:1 indicated eligibility. The Society of The New York Hospital and The New York Eye & Ear Infirmary were denied SHIF benefits due to their current ratios, while some other hospital groups with similar financial statuses received benefits. The Supreme Court initially found a rational basis for the rates but questioned the uniform application. The Appellate Division modified the decision, finding the application of eligibility tests to Hospital and Infirmary to be arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory, thereby violating equal protection clauses. The court granted summary judgment to Hospital and Infirmary, declaring the denial of SHIF benefits arbitrary and capricious, and remanded for an assessment of due benefits.

Reimbursement RatesMedicaidWorkers' CompensationNo-Fault InsurancePublic Health LawSHIF BenefitsAffordability FactorCurrent Ratio TestArbitrary and CapriciousEqual Protection
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Duff v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Claimant, a property manager for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was scheduled to work at One World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but remained at home. After learning of the attack, he voluntarily traveled to the site, was present when the second tower fell, and subsequently assisted as a volunteer in rescue efforts, sustaining psychological injuries. His initial claim for workers’ compensation benefits was established, but the Workers’ Compensation Board later reversed these decisions, finding his injury not work-related. Claimant appealed the Board's decisions, arguing that the employer's objection was untimely and that the Board erred in its finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board has discretionary authority to review untimely applications and that substantial evidence supported the finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterPsychological InjuryPost-traumatic Stress DisorderVolunteer ActionsWork-RelatednessCompensability of InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewTimeliness of ObjectionDiscretionary Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waisome v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Felix Waisome, along with other Black applicants, initiated a class action against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, Inc., alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The plaintiffs claimed that the Port Authority's promotion selection criteria for police sergeants had an adverse, discriminatory impact on Black applicants. Waisome sought class certification and partial summary judgment on liability, while the Port Authority cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted class certification but ultimately sided with the defendants, concluding that the statistical disparities in selection rates were insufficient, both in practical and legal terms, to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory impact. Consequently, summary judgment was granted for the defendants, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionTitle VIICivil Rights ActDisparate ImpactStatistical SignificanceSummary JudgmentPolice PromotionsRule 23Rule 56
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. New York State Department of Labor

This case addresses a challenge to respondent's determination concerning prevailing wage schedules for telecommunication workers in New York. The respondent had merged voice and data telecommunications work into a single "telecommunication worker" category and adopted a multi-tiered step rate wage schedule, asserting progression was based solely on longevity. Petitioners, including Local 363 of the IBEW, argued that this schedule was flawed as progression through step rates was contingent on skill mastery and training, effectively making lower-tier workers trainees. The court, citing Labor Law § 220 (3), found evidence supporting the petitioners' claim that advancement required acquired skills, not just time. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's judgment, annulled the respondent's determination, and granted the petition, concluding that adopting the full step rate schedule was arbitrary and capricious.

Wage disputeTelecommunication workersPrevailing wage lawLabor Law § 220Step rate wage scheduleApprenticeship programSkill-based progressionLongevity-based payJudicial reviewArticle 78 proceeding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital

Plaintiffs, a group of uninsured and indigent patients, brought a consolidated action against New York-Presbyterian Hospital, NY-Presbyterian Health Care System, Inc., and the American Hospital Association. They argued that private non-profit hospitals are legally obligated to provide free or reduced-rate services to uninsured individuals and that the rates charged were unreasonable compared to those offered to insured patients. The plaintiffs alleged violations of federal laws, including 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) (tax exemption), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as various New York state laws, such as breach of contract, breach of charitable trust, New York General Business Law § 349, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims with prejudice, concluding that no federal or state law requires private non-profit hospitals to offer free or reduced-rate care or to charge uninsured patients the same as insured patients. The court found that plaintiffs lacked standing for several claims and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for the remaining allegations.

Uninsured Patient RightsHospital PricingNon-Profit HospitalsTax Exempt StatusDebt Collection PracticesEmergency Medical TreatmentCivil Rights ClaimsCharitable Trust LawNew York Business LawUnjust Enrichment
References
82
Case No. 08 Civ. 7837(PAC)
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade v. City of New York

This case involves a dispute between New York City taxicab fleet owners and the City’s Taxicab & Limousine Commission (TLC) over new regulations. The regulations incentivize the purchase of hybrid taxicabs by increasing lease rates for hybrids and substantially reducing rates for non-hybrid vehicles. Plaintiffs challenged these new rules, arguing they create a de facto mandate to purchase hybrid vehicles, which is preempted by federal law (Energy Policy and Conservation Act - EPCA and Clean Air Act - CAA). The Court found that the new Lease Cap Rules indeed constitute an effective mandate to switch to hybrid vehicles, making them "related to" fuel economy standards and emissions control. Consequently, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that the City's new regulations are preempted by both the EPCA and the CAA.

Taxicab RegulationsHybrid VehiclesFederal PreemptionEnergy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)Clean Air Act (CAA)Preliminary InjunctionEconomic MandateLease Rate ControlFuel Efficiency StandardsEmissions Control
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State National Organization for Women v. Cuomo

This action addresses constitutional violations by the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) for its delayed processing of discrimination complaints. Plaintiffs, including NOW, moved to amend their complaint to add Governor Pataki and Commissioner Mercado in their personal capacities and to include a third subclass for administrative convenience dismissals. NOW also sought to supplement its complaint with claims against Commissioner Mercado for new intake procedures and a preliminary injunction to halt their enforcement. The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendations, granting all of plaintiffs' motions, finding a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm to complainants due to SDHR's ambiguous and erratically applied new rules. A full bench trial is scheduled for June 8, 1998.

DiscriminationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAdministrative DelayHuman Rights LawClass ActionPreliminary InjunctionMotion to AmendMotion to SupplementState Agency
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 11,201 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