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. 2012 NY Slip Op 31770OJ
Regular Panel Decision

Floyd v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued judgments annulling mayoral personnel orders No. 2012/1 and 2012/2, dated April 11, 2012. These orders reclassified ungraded civil service titles, subject to prevailing wage bargaining under Labor Law § 220, to graded workers under the New York City Collective Bargaining Law. The annulment was affirmed because the City failed to comply with Civil Service Law § 20, which mandates notice, a public hearing, and State Civil Service Commission approval for such reclassifications. The concurring justices were Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman, and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

annulmentmayoral orderscivil serviceprevailing wagecollective bargaininglabor lawcivil service lawreclassificationpublic hearingstate civil service commission
References
3
Case No. 71 Civ 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 638

The plaintiff, EEOC, brought an Order to Show Cause alleging that Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and its Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee (Local 28 JAC) were successors in interest to Local 10 and Local 10 JAC. The EEOC contended that Local 10 and Local 10 JAC had violated a 1973 federal district court order prohibiting discrimination against Black and Puerto Rican individuals. A Special Master was appointed and found that Local 28 was indeed the successor in interest to Local 10. The District Court affirmed the Special Master's finding, concluding that successor liability attached to Local 28. This decision was based on several key factors: the formal merger of Local 10 into Local 28, the substantial continuity of the business enterprise, Local 28's prior notice of Local 10's liabilities and the existing judicial order, and the overarching importance of federal policies, including upholding federal court judgments and promoting equal opportunity.

Successorship DoctrineLabor LawEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIUnion MergerJudicial Order EnforcementRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationSpecial Master FindingsFederal Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 1971

McLeod v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, Local Union 28

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought a temporary injunction against Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 28, AFL-CIO, alleging secondary boycott and jurisdictional dispute violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The dispute arose from a construction project in New York City where the respondent union's members refused to install air-conditioning fans, claiming the associated masonry casing work belonged to them, not to bricklayers represented by another union (Bricklayers Local 34). The court found reasonable cause to believe the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by attempting to force contractors to cease business with LaSalla Mason Corporation and to reassign the plenum construction work. Citing potential irreparable injury to the general contractor Diesel Construction, the court concluded that the requested injunctive relief was just and proper. Consequently, a temporary injunction was issued to restrain the respondent's actions.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActTemporary InjunctionSecondary BoycottJurisdictional DisputeUnfair Labor PracticesConstruction IndustrySheet Metal WorkersBricklayers UnionContract Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schwartz v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed April 25, 2012, ruled that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to her established work-related stress claim. The second decision, filed May 2, 2012, denied her payment for intermittent lost time. The court affirmed both decisions, finding that the employer's independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions regarding cardiac conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's determination that the claimant's Friday absences were for convenience, not disability, was also upheld by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealsCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyEnlarged Left AtriumWork-Related StressAdjustment DisorderIntermittent Lost Time Benefits
References
4
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Commission v. Local 638 ... Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The City of New York moved to modify a prior contempt order to establish a hiring hall operator selection committee and secure compensation for its representatives. Defendant Local 28 opposed the compensation, suggesting alternative funding or a delay pending a financial audit. The court granted the modification, authorizing the committee's formation and ordering Local 28 to pay the plaintiff's representatives at the journeyperson hourly rate, plus expenses. The judge dismissed Local 28's financial hardship claims due to insufficient evidence and the union's history of non-compliance with anti-discrimination orders. This decision ensures the effective implementation of equal employment opportunities for nonwhite members through the hiring hall.

DiscriminationContemptHiring HallCompensationUnionAffirmative ActionEmployment OpportunitiesJudicial ReviewCivil RightsSanctions
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Local Union 28 Sheet Metal Workers

Plaintiff Wayne Smith, acting pro se, sued Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 28 (Local 28), its Joint Apprenticeship Committee (JAC), and several individuals and a company, alleging race discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and breach of duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act. Smith claimed improper wage payments, withheld annuity contributions, discriminatory termination, and referral to a counseling program. The court found that Smith failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, as evidence showed he was treated similarly to other apprentices regarding wages, annuity contributions, and program advancements. Additionally, his Title VII claims were time-barred, and some defendants were not named in administrative charges, failing the "identity of interest" exception. The claims for breach of fair representation were also dismissed due to being outside the six-month statute of limitations and lacking evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union. Therefore, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Section 1985Labor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentApprenticeship ProgramStatute of Limitations
References
33
Case No. ADJ7785936
Regular
Sep 28, 2012

LISA VALDEZ vs. AH CLEARLAKE HOSPITAL, INC. dba ST.\nHELENA HOSPITAL CLEARLAKE, administered by, ADVENTIST HEALTH

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Lisa Valdez related to a prior decision dated August 22, 2012. The petitioner, Valdez, has since withdrawn their petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has formally dismissed the petition for reconsideration. This dismissal is effective as of September 28, 2012.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantADJ7785936Santa Rosa District OfficeAugust 22 2012September 28 2012
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1997

Claim of Crawford v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant who sustained a finger injury from a hypodermic needle in 1987. After an initial workers' compensation award, the case was reopened in 1993 when the claimant asserted a claim for a consequential posttraumatic neurosis or 'AIDS reaction phobia'. The employer argued that the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 barred the psychiatric claim. However, the Board rejected this argument and affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision to address the psychiatric condition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Section 28 does not bar amendment of a timely claim to include consequential injuries if a relationship exists between the subsequent claim and the initial injury.

Psychiatric Injury ClaimStatute of Limitations Workers' CompConsequential Psychological InjuriesHypodermic Needle InjuryAIDS Reaction PhobiaWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSection 28 BarAmendment of Timely ClaimCausally Related Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 1982

Naples v. Daubert Chemical Co.

This case involves multiple motions for a change of venue. An order entered June 23, 1981, denying defendant’s motion for a change of venue to Richmond County, was affirmed. An appeal from an order entered April 28, 1982, which denied a motion to change venue to Orange County, was dismissed as superseded. Finally, an order entered November 12, 1982, denying defendant’s motion for renewal of the April 28, 1982 order, was reversed. Upon renewal, the motion to change venue to Orange County was granted, as there was no nexus between New York County and the cause of action, and the accident occurred in Orange County where the plaintiff resided.

Change of VenueDiscretionary RulingSitus of ActionPlaintiff's ResidenceAttorney ConvenienceAppellate ReviewMotion for RenewalSupreme CourtNew York CountyOrange County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2002

Claim of Petitt v. Eaton & Van Winkle

The claimant was injured in a 1993 elevator accident but did not file a workers' compensation claim until 1999. The Workers' Compensation Board dismissed the claim as time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, which mandates dismissal if a claim is not filed within two years of the accident. On appeal, the claimant argued the employer and carrier waived the § 28 defense by failing to timely raise it and by making advance payments. The Board found the defense was timely raised at the first hearing and determined that the employer's one-day wage payment was sick leave, not an advance payment of compensation. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTime-Barred ClaimWaiver DefenseAdvance Payment of CompensationSick Leave PolicyAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionElevator Accident
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 863 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