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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheahan v. Brady

Plaintiff Danielle Sheahan, a white woman, was terminated from her position at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in April 1992, after being hired in May 1991. The defendant, the Secretary of the Treasury, claimed she was fired for submitting an altered college transcript. However, the plaintiff alleged racial and color discrimination, asserting that her mostly Black co-workers and supervisors conspired against her, fabricating the transcript alteration accusation. Sheahan pursued administrative remedies, first with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which dismissed her complaint for lack of jurisdiction on October 16, 1992. Subsequently, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which also dismissed her case on October 22, 1992, based on the erroneous belief that an MSPB appeal was still pending. Plaintiff then filed a civil suit in federal court on November 12, 1992. Critically, on November 9, 1992, the Treasury Department had filed a Request to Reopen the EEOC's October 22 decision. The court examined the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, specifically concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and the finality of EEOC actions. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1613.234, a timely request to reopen by either party renders an EEOC decision non-final for the purpose of initiating a civil action. Consequently, the defendant's request to reopen on November 9, 1992, made the EEOC's October 22 decision non-final before Sheahan filed her lawsuit on November 12, 1992. Therefore, the court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, and suggested that either party could renew a request to reopen the EEOC decision, anticipating it would be granted given the EEOC's original erroneous finding.

Federal employment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActRacial discriminationColor discriminationWrongful terminationAdministrative exhaustionEEOC decision finalitySubject matter jurisdictionMotion to dismiss
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.M. Perlman Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

This case involves R.M. Perlman, d/b/a Rebecca Moses Collection (RMC), a garment industry employer, suing two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union. The suit stemmed from picketing aimed at compelling RMC to enter into a Hazantown Agreement, which RMC alleged involved violence and caused substantial losses. The amended complaint included federal claims under the National Labor Relations Act and state law claims such as prima facie tort, intentional interference with contractual relations, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims, arguing federal preemption and RMC's failure to meet New York's specific pleading requirements for actions against unincorporated associations. The court found the state law claims were not preempted due to allegations of violent picketing, aligning with exceptions to federal preemption. However, the court ultimately granted the dismissal of the state law claims (counts two through seven) because RMC failed to allege that every single union member authorized or ratified the violent acts, as required by the New York Court of Appeals decision in Martin v. Curran. Additionally, the individual defendants Byer and Mazur were dismissed because the remaining federal claim under the Labor-Management Relations Act does not allow for individual liability. A motion to dismiss Rebecca Moses as a plaintiff was denied, pending further evidence on her standing. Plaintiffs were granted thirty days to replead the dismissed state law claims.

Labor LawFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsUnincorporated AssociationsUnion LiabilityViolent PicketingHazantown AgreementMotion to DismissNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.M. Perlman, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

The case concerns plaintiffs R.M. Perlman Inc. and Rebecca Moses, who initiated an action under the NLRA against two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. Plaintiffs sought damages alleging unfair labor practices related to the unions' picketing and a proposed "Hazantown Agreement." The central legal question involved whether four specific clauses within the agreement were protected by the garment industry proviso to NLRA § 8(e), thus making the unions' actions lawful. The court meticulously examined each contested clause—the Continuing Obligations, Trimmings, Struck Work, and Trucking Clauses—interpreting them within the context of the Hazantown Agreement and relevant legal precedents. Ultimately, the court determined that all challenged clauses fell within the protection of the garment industry proviso, concluding that the unions' picketing was not unlawful. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

National Labor Relations ActGarment Industry ProvisoUnfair Labor PracticesSummary JudgmentLabor UnionsHot Cargo AgreementsHazantown AgreementSecondary PicketingIntegrated Process of ProductionJobbers
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Zarkin

Respondent, admitted to law in 1979, faced multiple felony charges in 2003, including restraint of trade, enterprise corruption, and bribery, stemming from a scheme to bribe hospital workers for personal injury lawsuit candidates. He was also charged with offering false instruments for filing and falsifying business records related to false retainer statements. On November 22, 2005, respondent and his law firm, Loft & Zarkin, were convicted of two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and one count of falsifying business records in the first degree. He received a sentence of five years' probation and a $5,000 fine. The Disciplinary Committee subsequently sought his disbarment. The court granted the petition, ordering respondent's name to be stricken from the roll of attorneys, effective nunc pro tunc to November 22, 2005, citing automatic disbarment upon felony conviction under New York law.

DisbarmentAttorney MisconductFelony ConvictionFalse Instrument for FilingFalsifying Business RecordsCommercial BriberyEnterprise CorruptionProfessional EthicsAutomatic DisbarmentJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2002

Claim of Ostuni v. Town of Ramapo

Claimant appealed from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 22, 2002, which denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review of a prior decision. The prior decision had ruled that claimant did not sustain a work-related injury, citing insufficient credible evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial, finding that the Board fully considered all evidence and no new, previously unavailable evidence was offered to warrant altering its decision. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board’s September 2001 decision that claimant’s injuries were not compensable, as her recurring lower back pain stemmed from injuries predating or following the alleged November 1990 incident, rather than the incident itself. The court also upheld the Board's rejection of contrary testimony as not credible.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryWork-Related InjuryReconsiderationBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousSubstantial EvidenceMedical Testimony
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelley v. Lynaugh

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning the validity of various absentee and special ballots cast in a November 5, 2013, general election for Councilmember, 4th Council District, Town of Brookhaven. Constance M. Kepert appealed parts of a Supreme Court order, and Michael A. Loguercio, Jr., cross-appealed other parts. The appellate court modified the lower court's determinations regarding the casting and canvassing of specific ballots. The modifications were based on voter intent derived from ballot markings, as well as adherence to Election Law regarding signature verification and timely ballot receipt. Ultimately, the court directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections not to cast or canvass ballots designated as exhibits 2, 8, and 17, and to cast and canvass ballots designated as exhibits 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Election DisputeBallot ValidityVoter IntentAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsCanvassing ProceduresElection Law Article 16Suffolk County ElectionsAppellate ReviewGeneral Election 2013
References
8
Case No. ADJ2534619 (MON 0255706)
Regular
Jun 10, 2010

RUBY YARYAN vs. YOUR STAFF, INC.; SENIOR PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE, In Liquidation; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by co-defendant County of Los Angeles. The petition sought review of a Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that two injuries were inextricably intertwined. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely filed. Despite a dispute over initial service, the petitioner admitted receiving the decision on November 2, 2010, making their petition due on November 22, 2010. Since the petition was filed on November 30, 2010, it was beyond the statutory deadline and the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeTimelinessService of ProcessLabor Code Section 5903JurisdictionEAMSDefective Service
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Alto v. 22-24 129th Street, LLC

Plaintiffs Michael D'Alto, Jr. and his wife commenced an action seeking damages for personal injuries under common-law negligence and Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The injured plaintiff fell from a cement truck at a construction site owned by 22-24 129th Street, LLC, and leased to Pacific Lawn Sprinklers, Inc., while preparing cement for delivery. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for Labor Law § 240(1) claims but granted it for other claims, also denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification between the defendants. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Labor Law § 240(1) claims against both defendants, finding the accident within the purview of the law. However, the court granted summary judgment to Pacific Lawn Sprinklers, Inc., dismissing 22-24 129th Street, LLC's cross-claim for contractual indemnification, as the accident did not occur 'on the demised premises' as defined in the lease.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law §240(1)Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLease InterpretationAppellate ReviewElevation RiskProximate Cause
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. ADJ2577862 (VNO 0445793), ADJ1184365 (VNO 0445790)
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

BRIAN GARDNER vs. THERMO-KING, AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE INSURANCE, RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT

A lien claimant, Advanced Orthopedics, sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB dismissed the petition because it was filed 28 days after the mailing of the original decision, exceeding the 25-day deadline. Despite a proof of service claiming personal service on November 17, 2011, the WCAB's records show the petition was not received until November 22, 2011. The Board stated that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits.

ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionJurisdictional Time LimitsProof of ServiceWCAB RecordWCJ DecisionLien ClaimantHearing RepresentativeGreen Lien CollectionsAdvanced Orthopedics
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,023 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