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. 01-17-0002-1912
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 ("Local 3") sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an arbitration initiated by defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The arbitration concerns a work stoppage and alleged violation of a no-strike clause. The court denied Local 3's motion, ruling that Local 3 failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because it chose not to participate in the arbitration and could later challenge any adverse arbitral award in court. The decision emphasized that the monetary cost of arbitration alone does not constitute irreparable injury and highlighted the importance of demonstrating actual harm.

Arbitration StayPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseIrreparable HarmArbitrabilityFederal Court ProcedureJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) initiated civil contempt proceedings against Local Union No. 3 for violating a temporary injunction issued on October 28, 1971. The injunction prohibited Local 3 from inducing or encouraging its members employed by L. K. Comstock and Co., Lord Electric Co., and J. Livingston & Co. to refuse handling materials from New York Telephone Co. The court found that Local 3, through its attorney's statements and inaction, induced its members to engage in such refusals on multiple occasions. Consequently, the court found Local 3 in civil contempt, ordering it to comply with the injunction, submit a sworn statement of compliance, and pay the NLRB's costs and counsel fees.

Labor LawCivil ContemptTemporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottNational Labor Relations ActUnion MisconductWork StoppageInducementEmployee Refusal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between Local 3 and Charter Communications regarding a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The core issue is whether Local 3 members were bound by a CBA provision requiring arbitration of disputes during a strike in March 2017. The court found that Local 3's conduct, including signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), ratifying it, accepting improved wages and benefits, and utilizing grievance and arbitration procedures for almost two years, manifested an intent to be bound by the no-strike and arbitration provisions. Despite previous NLRB decisions regarding the inclusion of riders in the CBA, the District Court determined that the parties' actions indicated a binding agreement on the no-strike and grievance terms. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Charter, and arbitration was ordered.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActContract LawIntent to be BoundUnion DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This motion concerns plaintiffs' request to hold Harry VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena. The underlying action involves accusations of a conspiracy to prevent the sale of electrical products. During proceedings before a Special Master, VanArsdale, Jr., as business manager of the Union, refused to produce a complete file of 'Allied Union News' issues despite a validly issued subpoena duces tecum. The court acknowledges the refusal was not contumacious but legally incorrect. Consequently, the court finds both VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3 in contempt and orders the production of the requested documents, suspending punishment and costs contingent on their compliance.

Contempt of CourtSubpoena Duces TecumLabor UnionDiscoveryDocument ProductionSpecial MasterConspiracyInterstate CommerceRefusal to ComplyCourt Order
References
1
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05817
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Glowczynski v. Suburban Restoration Co., Inc.

Claimant Jan Glowczynski, an asbestos laborer, filed a workers' compensation claim in October 2016 for back, knee, hip, and shoulder injuries, attributing them to repetitive work duties since 1992, with an onset date of September 3, 2016. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, challenging the causal relationship. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, a decision subsequently upheld by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found a lack of established causal link between the claimant's employment and his medical conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant failed to provide competent medical evidence to prove an occupational disease, as medical opinions either lacked causation statements or failed to adequately correlate the conditions with specific work duties.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationshipRepetitive Use InjuryAsbestos LaborerDegenerative DiseaseArthritisBack PainKnee PainShoulder Pain
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08613 [167 AD3d 1222]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2018

Matter of Sweeney v. Air Stream A.C. Co.

Claimant Charles Sweeney III sustained a work-related right bicep injury in August 2016. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) decision on October 3, 2017, awarded him benefits for a 30% schedule loss of use of his right arm. Subsequently, the claimant alleged that the State Insurance Fund failed to make timely payment as per Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). However, at a November 2017 hearing, the claimant's counsel accepted documentation from the State Insurance Fund, leading the WCLJ to find the payment timely. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claimant's application for review, citing his failure to object to the WCLJ's ruling during the hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the timeliness of payment was a factual issue that should have been developed at the hearing, and the claimant's counsel did not interpose a specific objection.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewTimely PaymentPenalty ProvisionWCLJ DecisionBoard ApplicationProcedural ComplianceWaiver of ObjectionSchedule Loss of UseInsurance Carrier Liability
References
1
Case No. ADJ10306129
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

MICHAEL LAMBERT vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY REGION IV, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration filed by the State of California, Department of Forestry Region IV and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Board found the petition was untimely as it was filed on October 24, 2016, three days after the jurisdictional deadline of October 21, 2016. This deadline was calculated based on the service of the original decision by mail on September 26, 2016. The Board reiterated that filing by mail is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board within the statutory timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelydismissalservice by mailjurisdictionalOpinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationuntimely filingOctober 21
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 1995

Claim of Glasheen v. New York State Department

Claimant, a General Counsel for the New York Department of State, developed muscular skeletal strain and nerve dysfunction from extensive writing, leading to a diagnosis of cumulative trauma disorder. After an inability to agree on accommodations for her disability, she was terminated in October 1993. The Workers’ Compensation Board established occupational disease and causal relationship, setting the date of disablement as October 3, 1991. The Board further ruled she sustained a causally related partial disability from September 20, 1993 through September 8, 1994, entitling her to benefits. The employer appealed, arguing she voluntarily removed herself from the job market and that the date of disablement was incorrect. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported that claimant did not voluntarily withdraw from the labor market and that October 3, 1991, was the proper date of disablement.

Occupational DiseaseMuscular Skeletal StrainNerve DysfunctionCumulative Trauma DisorderPartial DisabilityDate of DisablementVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer AccommodationMedical Evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1980

Claim of Mastrogiovanni v. Underhill

The Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, filed April 17, 1980, concerned a claimant who sustained two back injuries in 1975 while working as a labor foreman. The Board, relying on medical evidence from Doctors Kessler and Hochberg, apportioned responsibility for the claimant's overall disability: 25% to the July 3, 1975 accident and 75% to the October 7, 1975 accident. It further determined that the July 3, 1975 accident was not subject to Workers’ Compensation Law section 15-8d, as it did not materially and substantially worsen any prior permanent condition. Conversely, the October 7, 1975 accident was deemed subject to section 15-8d due to its material and substantial worsening of the claimant's condition. The employer and carrier appealed, challenging the apportionment and seeking reimbursement under section 15-8d for the July 3, 1975 accident, contending a preexisting condition should bear a portion of the disability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support its findings.

ApportionmentWorkers' CompensationBack InjuryDisabilityPreexisting ConditionSection 15-8dMedical EvidenceAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceBoard Panel
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07834 [166 AD3d 468]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

Charter Communications, Inc. v. Local Union No. 3

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's orders. The Supreme Court had denied Charter Communications, Inc.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against Local Union No. 3's picketing campaign and its motion to compel expedited discovery. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division found that the lower court properly declined to make factual findings required for injunctive relief under Labor Law § 807 and correctly dismissed common-law tort claims due to a failure to plead that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions.

Preliminary InjunctionPermanent InjunctionLabor DisputePicketingTrespassingCommon-Law TortUnion LiabilityExpedited DiscoveryAppellate ReviewDismissal of Complaint
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,266 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