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. GRO 0029816, GRO 0029817
En Banc

Marlene Escobedo vs. Marshalls, CNA Insurance Co.

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that under Labor Code section 4663 as amended by SB 899, apportionment of permanent disability is based on causation and may include pre-existing, non-industrial conditions like degenerative arthritis, provided there is substantial medical evidence to support the percentage of non-industrial causation.

SB 899ApportionmentCausationPermanent DisabilityPreexisting ConditionDegenerative ArthritisSubstantial Medical EvidenceMedical ProbabilityLabor Code Section 4663Compensable Consequence
References
56
Case No. ADJ6675568
Regular
May 01, 2015

GERALD KEYES vs. B&L MECHANICAL, LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's teeth. This injury was found to be a consequence of medications prescribed for a prior industrial back injury, which caused dry mouth and accelerated tooth decay. While the apportionment of industrial versus non-industrial causation was debated, the Board found substantial medical evidence supporting that the industrial medications contributed to the dental condition. The decision focused on causation of injury, not permanent disability apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGerald KeyesB&L MechanicalLincoln General Insurance CompanyADJ6675568dental injuryhyposalivationPQMEDr. Gregory StephensDr. Dennis Shamlian
References
1
Case No. ADJ7324566
Regular
Apr 09, 2013

BRANDON CLARK DECEASED, JOVELYN CLARK (WIDOW), GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JOANNA CLARK (MINOR CHILD), BRITTANY CLARK (MINOR CHILD), BENJAMIN CLARK (MINOR CHILD) vs. SOUTH COAST FRAMING, INC., REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a death claim where the decedent, Brandon Clark, died from combined toxic effects of sedating drugs. The defense argued that industrially prescribed medications did not significantly contribute to the death, but the Board upheld the finding that the industrially prescribed amitriptyline was a contributing factor. The Board found ample evidence supported industrial causation, rejecting the defense's attempt to limit causation solely to non-industrial medications and their untimely raised claim of intentional overdose.

Death ClaimIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationWidows BenefitsMinor DependentsToxicologyDrug InteractionCausationExpert OpinionMedical Examiner
References
0
Case No. ADJ1577836
Regular
May 04, 2009

JESUS GAVINO-REMIGIO vs. STRATUS SERVICES GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured when stepping on a metal hook, sustaining an admitted industrial injury to his right foot. The applicant sought reconsideration after the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied findings that the injury also affected his internal systems (diabetes), eyes, and psyche, along with associated disability. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant's medical expert's opinion on non-industrial diabetes causation to be substantial evidence, while deeming the applicant's medical experts' opinions insufficient. A dissenting commissioner argued the applicant's medical evidence sufficiently supported industrial causation for diabetes aggravation, warranting reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injuryright footinternal systemseyespsychediabetes mellituspermanent disabilitytemporary disabilityGerald Markovitz M.D.
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Marzovilla v. New York State Industrial Board of Appeals

Petitioners Nicola Marzovilla and Valodome, Inc., challenged a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) which found they violated Labor Law § 196-d by misappropriating employee tips at their New York City restaurant, iTrulli. The misappropriation occurred from 2001 to 2005 through the inclusion of senior employees, Gianni Linardic and Alex Steidl, in a mandatory tip pool, despite their ineligibility due to supervisory roles or non-service primary duties. The Department of Labor (DOL) initially assessed approximately $407,000 in owed wages, interest, and penalties, a finding largely upheld by the IBA. The Appellate Division confirmed the IBA's decision, concluding that Linardic exercised "meaningful authority" over other servers and Steidl's duties were not principally customer service, thus rendering both ineligible for tip sharing. Consequently, the determination of tip misappropriation was upheld, and the petitioners' CPLR article 78 petition was dismissed.

Tip PoolingWage MisappropriationLabor Law § 196-dIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewRestaurant IndustrySupervisory EmployeesTip EligibilityCPLR Article 78Judicial Review
References
6
Case No. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
Case No. ADJ3449073 (LBO 0392250) ADJ3573639 (LBO 0393361)
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

STEPHEN KEMBLE vs. BAY VIEW PUMBING AND HEATING, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of prior decisions that apportioned the applicant's 100% permanent disability between two industrial injuries and non-industrial factors. The Board found the psychiatric Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion unsubstantial due to a lack of review of pre-injury records and a misunderstanding of apportionment duties. Consequently, the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including appointing a new medical examiner to address causation and apportionment issues more thoroughly. The Board emphasized the need for a fully developed record on complex medical causation concerning the psyche injury.

ReconsiderationFindings and AwardsIndustrial InjuryRight KneeLow BackBoth FeetPsychePlumberPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
7
Case No. ADJ11030955
Regular
Jan 06, 2020

JOSE RIVAS ESCALANTE vs. WEST ANAHEIM MEDICAL CENTER, SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding of industrial injury. The Board agreed that the claim was not barred by post-termination provisions because the applicant's date of injury, defined by disability and knowledge of its industrial cause, occurred after notice of termination. Evidence showed the applicant did not suffer a compensable disability or ratable permanent disability until after he was terminated. Furthermore, the Board found that medical evaluators adequately considered non-industrial conditions in their findings of industrial causation.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination provisionsexception 3600(a)(10)(D)date of injurynotice of terminationcertified nurse's assistantindustrial injurycervical spinelumbar spineleft wrist
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,396 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