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

Abraham & Straus, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 30

Abraham & Straus (A&S) sought a preliminary injunction against defendant Local 30 to stop picketing and job actions concerning engineer and mechanic staffing at a new Roosevelt Field store. A&S argued these actions violated their collective bargaining agreement's no-strike and arbitration clauses. Local 30 contended the dispute was purely representational, not arbitrable, and that Boys Markets relief did not apply to picketing alone. The court found the dispute arbitrable due to the broad arbitration clause and the union's previous intent to arbitrate. It also determined that Boys Markets injunctions could cover picketing, especially when it caused work stoppages, ultimately granting A&S's request and ordering arbitration.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseNo-Strike ClausePicketingWork StoppageBoys Markets ExceptionLabor Management Relations ActFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. ADJ3605789 (GOL 0101314), ADJ2387995 (GOL 0101316), ADJ460036 (GOL 0101315)
Regular
Jul 26, 2012

JORGE VIVANCO vs. NEVERLAND VALLEY RANCH, ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON, MJJ PRODUCTIONS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY, UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, MONARCH CONSULTING dba PES PAYROLL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the original findings regarding employment for both United Staffing Associates and Monarch Consulting. The Board found that United Staffing Associates was never the applicant's employer, rescinding findings that they were the employer on October 8, 2007, and for a cumulative trauma period. Regarding Monarch Consulting, the Board found they were not the employer on October 2, 2006, but were the general employer from March 2006 through August 30, 2007, with specific exclusions, reversing the prior ruling on the specific injury date. The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with these revised findings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJorge VivancoNeverland Valley RanchEstate of Michael JacksonMJJ ProductionsTravelers IndemnityUnited Staffing AssociatesAmerican Home Assurance CompanyMonarch ConsultingPES Payroll
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. County of Sullivan

The petitioner, a civil service employee of Sullivan County, appealed a judgment denying his application for reimbursement of back pay and benefits following a suspension and demotion for an unauthorized leave of absence. The Special Term had limited his relief to the period from September 25 through October 16, 1980. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to back pay for the initial 30-day suspension period because he was found guilty, and Civil Service Law § 75(3) precludes recovery in such cases. The court also noted that the county was not obligated to pay him for any period after October 16, 1980, as he failed to return to work, despite a mistaken representation by the County Attorney.

Civil Service LawSuspension without payDemotionBack payBenefits reimbursementCPLR Article 78Unauthorized leaveGuilty findingAppellate reviewGovernment employee
References
1
Case No. No. 29, No. 30
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

The Matter of the Claim of Thomas Johnson v. City of New York , The Matter of the Claim of Joseph D. Liuni v. Gander Mountain

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a common issue in these appeals: whether a claimant’s schedule loss of use (SLU) award must always be reduced by a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same body “member” under Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 15. The Court clarified that separate SLU awards for distinct injuries to the same statutory member are permissible, provided the claimant demonstrates that the second injury resulted in an increased loss of use. For Thomas Johnson, the Court affirmed the prior decision, concluding he failed to present sufficient evidence isolating the impairment caused solely by his knee injury, apart from his prior hip injury award. Conversely, for Joseph D. Liuni, the Court reversed and remitted the case, as Liuni had provided evidence through his expert that his elbow and shoulder injuries were separate pathologies, each contributing distinctly to the loss of use of his arm.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Successive InjuriesBody Member ImpairmentEarning CapacityStatutory InterpretationKnee InjuryHip InjuryElbow InjuryShoulder InjuryMedical Expert Testimony
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1990

Neumark v. Neumark

In a matrimonial action, the defendant former husband appealed and the plaintiff wife cross-appealed from portions of an order and judgment concerning the division of marital assets and maintenance. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially directed the husband to convey his interest in the marital residence, pay accrued arrears of $101,535.91, and $61,369.93 in pension benefits, and reduced maintenance to $800 a month. The Appellate Court modified the order, deleting the pension benefit award and remitting for a determination of present value. Maintenance was further reduced to $500 a month, and accrued arrears for the plaintiff were adjusted to $99,255.91. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Matrimonial ActionDivorceMaintenance ArrearsPension BenefitsMarital ResidenceEquitable DistributionDownward ModificationChange of CircumstancesAppellate ReviewCross-Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

CARTIER, DIV. OF RICHEMONT v. Bertone Group

In a trademark infringement case, defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs' litigation counsel, Tal Benschar, Esq., from serving as a 30(b)(6) deposition witness, citing New York Disciplinary Rule 5-102 which addresses the advocate-witness rule. The Court denied the defendants' motion, allowing Mr. Benschar to testify. The Court acknowledged the potential for confusion and conflicting loyalties when a lawyer acts as both a witness and an advocate, but found these dangers less likely in the pre-trial context. It also considered that Mr. Benschar was in the best position to provide the requested information, having supervised the investigation. However, the Court deferred its ruling on whether Mr. Benschar’s testimony would disqualify him from subsequently serving as trial counsel, noting that another attorney would be primary trial counsel.

Trademark InfringementDiscoveryFed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)Attorney DisqualificationAdvocate-Witness RuleEthical RulesDeposition TestimonyPre-Trial ProcedureNew York LawCounsel Representation
References
2
Case No. ADJ6479667
Regular
Jan 20, 2009

GUSTAVO GUZMAN vs. KROLL FURNITURE CORPORATION, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant's petition for reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release is granted, rescinding the WCJ's October 30, 2008 decision and returning the matter for further proceedings.

Gustavo GuzmanKroll Furniture CorporationEmployers Compensation Insurance CompanyADJ6479667ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseWalk-throughIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderUpholsterer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2007

Lucas v. Fulton Realty Partners

The plaintiffs, Audobon Lucas and Lawrence J. Brex, were injured while dismantling large steel storage cages in a warehouse owned by 30 Warren Place Corp. Lucas, working on a scaffold, was struck by falling sheet metal from a cage he was prying from a wall, and Brex was injured attempting to assist him. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs were engaged in "altering" work covered by the statute and that the falling object liability applied as the unsecured sheet metal posed a significant risk. The court also determined that the appellant's unsworn workers' compensation forms were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding causation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSection 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityFalling ObjectConstruction AccidentWarehouseScaffold IncidentAltering Work
References
19
Case No. ADJ4052373 (VNO 0479552) ADJ4287846 (VNO 0479554)
Regular

AURELIO BOBADILLA vs. HIGH DESERT DAIRY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFIT TRUST FUND

Reconsideration granted; rescinding the Findings and Award of October 30, 2008, and the Order of November 12, 2008; matter returned to trial level for further development of the medical record.

Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust Fundpermanent disabilityapportionmentindustrial injurypre-existing disabilitymedical evidencefurther developmentreconsiderationLabor Code Section 4751orthopedic surgeon
References
5
Case No. ADJ3401894 (OAK 0348541)
Regular
Oct 07, 2009

CHRIS HYLAND vs. BROWARD BROTHERS INC., SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Arbitrator's decision is affirmed, with amendments reflecting that applicant sustained a cumulative injury from April 30, 2007, to October 18, 2007, and that his attorney is entitled to a 15% fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBroward Brothers Inc.Seabright Insurance CompanyUnion CarpenterIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryLeft Hand InjuryLeft Wrist InjuryLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Notice of Termination
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,331 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