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. 2022 NY Slip Op 04852 [208 AD3d 1012]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Vandee v. Suit-Kote Corp.

This case involves a class action brought by employees (plaintiffs) against Suit-Kote Corporation (defendant) for allegedly failing to pay prevailing supplemental benefits on public works contracts. The core dispute is whether the defendant’s practice of depositing the shortfall in benefits into a pooled ERISA trust, which also covers non-prevailing wage workers, satisfies the requirements of Labor Law § 220. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the lower court's decision, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. The court concluded that the payment into the pooled trust, when diluted by benefits for non-prevailing wage workers, does not fulfill the statutory obligation, emphasizing that individual prevailing wage workers must receive the full value of their supplemental benefits. Consequently, the breach of contract cause of action was reinstated.

Prevailing WageSupplemental BenefitsLabor Law § 220Public Works ContractsBreach of ContractERISA PlanPooled TrustClass ActionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1981

Blyer v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

The National Labor Relations Board sought a preliminary injunction against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear, and Allied Workers’ Union, International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union (ILG) for alleged unfair labor practices under NLRA Section 8(b)(4)(D), related to picketing for a jobber’s agreement. The court examined the applicability of the garment-industry proviso in NLRA Section 8(e) to the alleged work-assignment dispute. It found that the Board's theory was novel and lacked sufficient factual findings. Considering factors like the ILG's initial lawful picketing, the employer's non-innocent status, and the desire to preserve the status quo, the court denied the injunction, concluding it would be inequitable and improper.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticePreliminary InjunctionNLRAGarment Industry ProvisoWork Assignment DisputeJobber's AgreementPicketingSecondary BoycottGarment Union
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AUSTIN ISD v. Manbeck

This case originated as a suit for judicial review by Austin Independent School District (AISD), a self-insured entity, against Charles M. Manbeck regarding an extent-of-injury dispute under the Workers' Compensation Act. Manbeck counterclaimed for attorneys' fees. AISD later non-suited its judicial-review claim, proceeding solely on Manbeck's counterclaim. The district court awarded Manbeck $36,000 for pre-non-suit attorneys' fees and $17,415 for post-non-suit fees, plus contingent appellate fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the $36,000 award, finding sufficient evidence for fees incurred before the non-suit. However, it reversed the awards for post-non-suit and appellate attorneys' fees, concluding that Labor Code section 408.221(c) does not authorize recovery of 'fees for fees' (attorneys' fees incurred solely to recover other attorneys' fees).

Workers' CompensationAttorneys' FeesJudicial ReviewSelf-Insured EmployerExtent of Injury DisputeStatutory ConstructionAmerican RuleFee Shifting ProvisionLabor Code Section 408.221Appellate Review
References
40
Case No. 03-09-00682-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2011

Austin ISD, Self-Insured v. Charles M. Manbeck

This case originated from a workers' compensation dispute where Austin ISD (AISD), a self-insured governmental entity, sought judicial review of a Division of Workers’ Compensation decision regarding the extent of Charles M. Manbeck's injury. Manbeck, the claimant, counterclaimed for attorneys' fees under Labor Code section 408.221(c). AISD later non-suited its judicial-review claim, and the case proceeded solely on Manbeck's counterclaim for attorneys' fees. The district court awarded Manbeck $36,000 for trial-level fees incurred before AISD's non-suit, $17,415 for fees incurred after the non-suit, and contingent appellate attorneys' fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the award of $36,000 for fees incurred prior to AISD's non-suit but reversed and rendered judgment that Manbeck take nothing on the claims for fees incurred after the non-suit and contingent appellate fees, holding that Labor Code section 408.221(c) does not authorize recovery of 'fees for fees'.

Workers' Compensation ActAttorneys' FeesJudicial ReviewExtent of InjurySelf-Insured EntityLabor Code Section 408.221(c)American RuleFee ShiftingStatutory ConstructionSufficiency of Evidence
References
40
Case No. 07-04-0016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2005

Dean Foods, D/B/A Bell/Gandy's a Certified Self-Insured v. Debra Anderson

This concurring opinion addresses the concept of a 'prevailing party' for the recovery of attorney's fees, particularly in cases involving a non-suit. The court emphasizes the uniformity of definition for 'prevailing party' across various statutes and rules, including the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Labor Code. Citing several precedents, the opinion asserts that the beneficiary of a non-suit, typically the defendant when a plaintiff files a non-suit, is considered the prevailing party. Consequently, the court concludes that Debra Anderson was the successful or prevailing party in this case when Dean Foods Company filed its non-suit.

Attorney's feesPrevailing partyNon-suitTexas Labor CodeTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate courtWorkers' compensationCivil procedure rulesJudicial precedentConcurring opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2011

Annicaro v. Corporate Suites, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Millenium Contracting Services Corp., was injured while cleaning debris from a staircase at a commercial building owned by 757 3rd Avenue Associates, LLC, managed by RFR Realty, LLC, and leased by Corporate Suites 757, LLC. He allegedly stepped on a threaded metal rod, lost his balance, and fell, sustaining personal injuries. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the hazard was inherent to the plaintiff's work for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a violation of a specific Industrial Code provision or causation for Labor Law § 241 (6).

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Safe Place to WorkDebris HazardStaircase Fall
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Goidel (In Re Goidel)

Bonnie Roberts, a bus driver, sued the Goidel debtors for defamation after they accused her of sexually abusing their daughter, Tara, on a preschool bus. This accusation was investigated but no charges were brought against Roberts. The Goidels filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, staying the defamation action. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Howard Schwartzberg, found no credible evidence of sexual abuse by Roberts. Exercising discretion, the court abstained from determining the amount of Roberts' claim and lifted the automatic stay, allowing the defamation suit to proceed in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, to judgment. The bankruptcy court will later determine if any judgment obtained by Roberts is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

DefamationBankruptcyNon-dischargeability of DebtSexual Abuse AllegationAutomatic StayAbstention DoctrineIntentional TortChapter 7Willful and Malicious InjuryState Court Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Jack for Her, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

This case involves an action initially brought in state court by Billy Jack for Her, Inc., an apparel jobber, against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear and Allied Workers’ Union. Billy Jack alleged tortious interference with contractual relations due to the Union's picketing aimed at securing a 'Hazantown agreement.' The Union removed the case to federal court. The court denied Billy Jack's motion to remand, ruling that the state law claim was preempted by federal labor law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction. The Union's motion to modify a temporary restraining order was denied as moot because the order had already expired.

Labor disputeFederal preemptionTortious interference with contractPicketingHazantown agreementNational Labor Relations ActNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(B)NLRA Section 8(b)(7)(A)Removal jurisdictionFederal question jurisdiction
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 5,391 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