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
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quevedo v. City of New York

Plaintiff Raphael A. Quevedo, an employee of Berley Industries, Inc., was injured by a boiler explosion in a building owned by the City of New York. Quevedo sued the City and V and A Oil Burner Services, Inc., alleging negligence. The City subsequently commenced a third-party action for contractual indemnification against Berley Industries, Inc., based on a clause in their maintenance contract. Berley argued the indemnification clause was void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 and that the City's notice to the insurer was untimely. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division both affirmed the enforceability of the clause. This court affirmed, clarifying that General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 only voids clauses indemnifying for *sole* negligence, and since no sole negligence was proven, the clause remained enforceable to the extent it covered joint fault. The court also rejected the untimely notice argument, citing the contract's provision that notice by either party was sufficient.

Indemnification clauseBuilding maintenance contractContractual liabilityGeneral Obligations LawSole negligenceJoint faultInsurance coverageThird-party actionSettlementAppellate review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2004

Spages v. Gary Null Associates, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order regarding a plaintiff's Labor Law claims against defendants Gary Null Associates, Inc. and Selma Weiser. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, but the appellate court modified this. The appellate decision denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing comparative negligence as a valid defense and evidence of the plaintiff's own contribution to the injury. However, the grant of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was affirmed, as comparative negligence is not a defense, and defendants failed their nondelegable duty to provide adequate scaffolding. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Selma Weiser's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Gary Null Associates, Inc., finding Null's liability to be purely statutory and not actively negligent.

Labor LawScaffolding SafetySummary JudgmentComparative NegligenceIndemnificationStatutory DutyWorkplace InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction Safety
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chassman v. People Resources

The plaintiff sought the return of $1,850 paid to People Resources, a self-described 'organization for singles,' alleging the contract was void under General Business Law § 394-c, procured by fraud, and for lack of services. Defendant argued the law was inapplicable and that arbitration was mandated by the contract. The court determined that People Resources operates as a 'social referral service' under the broad interpretation of General Business Law § 394-c, despite its claim of merely providing a 'forum.' The contract was found to violate several statutory provisions, including charging excessive fees and lacking mandatory cancellation options, rendering it void and unenforceable due to its public policy implications. Consequently, the arbitration clause within the void contract was also deemed unenforceable, leading the court to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny the defendant's.

Social Referral ServiceContract VoidabilitySummary JudgmentArbitration ClauseConsumer Protection LawGeneral Business LawUnenforceable ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationDating ServicesLegislative Intent
References
11
Case No. ADJ7965938
Regular
Jul 08, 2013

ALDO GUTIERREZ vs. PROGRESSIVE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding that the prior Order of Dismissal was void because it violated WCAB Rule 10582 by not following proper dismissal procedures and instead included a clause making it voidable by objection. The Board rescinded both the void Order of Dismissal and subsequent related orders that were predicated on its validity. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalOrder of DismissalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLack of ProsecutionWCAB Rule 10582Void ab initioPetition to ReopenMandatory Settlement ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ3714425 (FRE 0234250) ADJ896033 (FRE 0171714)
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

MICHAEL WRIGHT vs. STAR MEDIA, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a WCJ's order that enforced a reimbursement order against Travelers Indemnity Company. The Board found the reimbursement order void *ab initio* due to procedural due process infirmities. Specifically, the "self-destruct" clause in the order did not comport with due process protections outlined in precedent cases like *Mitchell v. Golden Eagle Ins.*, failing to guarantee a review of objections or automatically void the order upon valid objection. Therefore, Travelers' due process rights were violated, necessitating the rescission of the WCJ's findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder for ReimbursementCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Cumulative Trauma InjuryAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)ApportionmentDue ProcessSelf-Destruct ClauseVoid Ab Initio
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2014

Whitehaven S.F., LLC v. Spangler

This case involves a dispute over the validity and enforceability of an arbitration clause within a litigation financing agreement. Petitioner Whitehaven S.F., LLC sought to compel Respondent Steven Spangler to arbitrate after Spangler initiated an Indiana state court action to void their financing agreement, citing unconscionability. The District Court granted Whitehaven's motion, finding the arbitration clause valid under New York law and rejecting Spangler's arguments that it was unconscionable or violated a prior Assurance of Discontinuance with the New York Attorney General. The court also ordered a stay of the Indiana Proceeding concerning claims between Whitehaven and Spangler, but excluded third-party Harvey Thatcher from arbitration as he was not a signatory to the agreement. The decision underscores the strong federal policy favoring arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementLitigation FinancingContract EnforceabilityUnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration ActAssurance of DiscontinuanceNew York LawChoice of LawDeclaratory JudgmentStay of Proceedings
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 783 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