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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. ADJ1357786 (RDG 0126731)
Regular
May 10, 2010

MARK JAMES vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK 14627 ONTARIO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration of an award to Mark James. The original award found James sustained a 100% permanent disability due to industrial melanoma, and Pacific Bell argued for apportionment to non-industrial causes. The Board affirmed the finding that the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Blau, was unable to determine the percentage of disability caused by non-industrial factors due to insufficient information. This inability to apportion, not a failure to consult, meant Pacific Bell failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyMark JamesMaintenance Splicing TechnicianMelanomaPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Robert Blau
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salomon v. Adderley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs Geordany J. Salomon, Donielle Lewis, Dwight Edghill, and Shanroy Powell sought to amend their complaint against Adderley Industries, Inc. to include American Communications Industries, Inc. and several individuals (Lawrence Presser, Joseph Misseri, Vincent Cestaro) as additional defendants. They also requested to add a new claim under New York Labor Law Section 195. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York reviewed the motion, applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). The court granted the motion to add the new corporate and individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the amendment after new information emerged during discovery and that the proposed claims of employer status were plausible under the FLSA and NYLL. However, the request to add the NYLL § 195 claim was denied because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient good cause for its late inclusion.

Amendment of PleadingsJoinder of PartiesEmployer LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ClaimsDiscoveryGood Cause StandardUndue DelayFutility of Amendment
References
36
Case No. ADJ9971016
Regular
Aug 27, 2019

BALDEMAR GONZALEZ, JR. vs. MORGANITE INDUSTRIES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a dispute over the apportionment of permanent disability benefits for an applicant's hearing loss. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the original award because the administrative law judge (WCJ) failed to provide the formula used to calculate the 16% permanent disability rating. Additionally, the WCAB found that the medical evaluator's report lacked sufficient reasoning to explain how the applicant's asymmetrical hearing loss was apportioned between industrial and non-industrial causes. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings, potentially including a new medical report and deposition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Disability RatingApportionmentIndustrial InjuryNon-IndustrialOccupational Noise ExposureAsymmetrical Hearing LossQualified Medical EvaluatorOtology Report
References
10
Case No. ADJ3925996 (FRE 0180480) ADJ360469 (FRE 0198851)
Regular
Oct 01, 2012

MICHAEL AKINS vs. THE SALVATION ARMY, Permissibly Self-Insured

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant, The Salvation Army, seeks to deny liability for applicant Michael Akins' recommended spinal surgery. While Akins sustained industrial injuries to his neck and back in 1998 and 2001, a subsequent non-industrial car accident in 2008 displaced hardware from his prior industrial surgery. The Board found that the industrial injury was a substantial contributing factor to the need for the current surgery, even though the non-industrial accident was the "most proximate cause." Therefore, the defendant remains liable for the recommended surgical intervention.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderIndustrial InjurySpinal SurgeryPrimary Treating PhysicianNon-Industrial Motor Vehicle CollisionIntervening EventAgreed Medical ExaminerCausation
References
1
Case No. ADJ8144421
Regular
Nov 21, 2016

CLINT JAMES vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA administered by AIG CLAIMS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to find that the prior apportionment of 50% of applicant's lumbar spine impairment to non-industrial causes was not supported by substantial medical evidence. The Board found the PQME's report lacked sufficient detail to explain how non-industrial factors caused the permanent disability. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original award, found no basis for apportionment, and increased the permanent disability to 70%, deferring the issue of attorney fees for trial level determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical ExaminerSubstantial Medical EvidenceLabor CodeCausation
References
3
Case No. ADJ2590975 (STK 0190237)
Regular
Sep 12, 2011

RAFAEL DELEON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR, MULE CREEK PRISON, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed a prior award granting medical treatment for applicant's diabetes. Despite the defendant's argument that diabetes treatment was for a non-industrial condition, the Board found it necessary to prevent worsening of the applicant's industrially caused heart disease. Medical evaluators concluded that controlling diabetes is an essential component of treating industrial heart conditions, making the treatment compensable. The decision hinges on the principle that treatment for non-industrial conditions is covered when essential to cure or relieve the effects of an industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryHeart ConditionDiabetesGastrointestinal DifficultiesAgreed Medical EvaluatorTreating PhysicianCardiologistMedical TreatmentLabor Code Section 4600
References
9
Case No. ADJ7037475
Regular
Oct 04, 2018

JESUS ROJAS vs. GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY CENTER, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jesus Rojas's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's award of 81% permanent disability for his admitted industrial spine injury. Rojas argued for 100% permanent disability based on an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion of inability to return to the labor market and contended apportionment to non-industrial factors was unsubstantiated. The Board found the apportionment to pre-existing congenital stenosis was supported by medical evidence and that the *Hikida* case did not apply as Rojas's disability was not directly caused by the effects of medical treatment necessitated by both industrial and non-industrial factors. Furthermore, the Board held that Labor Code section 4662(b) does not create an independent pathway to permanent total disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Labor Code section 4656Labor Code section 4658Labor Code section 4662(b)Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals. Bd.non-industrial factors
References
2
Case No. ADJ10170331
Regular
Sep 23, 2019

ROBIN WITHERS vs. ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Robin Withers' petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation ruling denying her claim for psychiatric injury. The administrative law judge found that Withers sustained industrial injury in the form of headaches but not to her psyche. Withers argued she proved a work-related psychiatric injury, citing symptoms that predated significant non-industrial stressors. However, the evidence, including expert opinion, indicated that non-industrial stressors were the predominant cause of her psychiatric condition. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardADJ10170331Findings of FactPetition for ReconsiderationWCJpsychiatric injuryPQMEpredominant causenon-industrial stressorssexual harassment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,475 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