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

Dorosz v. Green & Seifter

The case concerns a workers' compensation claim filed by the widow of an accountant who died from a heart attack while bowling in a league sponsored by a client of his firm. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, ruling that the death did not arise out of employment, as the bowling was a voluntary, off-duty athletic activity. This decision was based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 10, which restricts benefits for such activities unless the employer required participation, compensated the employee, or sponsored the activity. The Appellate Division upheld the Board's determination, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no evidence that the employer met any of the statutory criteria for compensation. The court emphasized that a benefit to the employer alone is not sufficient, and the activity did not constitute part of the employee's work-related duties.

Workers' CompensationOff-Duty ActivityAthletic InjuryEmployer SponsorshipVoluntary ParticipationWork-Related DutiesHeart AttackStatutory InterpretationNew York LawAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hellmers v. Town of Vestal, NY

Plaintiff Gary Hellmers, a Town of Vestal Police Officer, filed a suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against his employer, the Town of Vestal, seeking overtime compensation for off-duty activities. These activities included caring for his police dog, performing various non-canine police duties, and challenging restrictions on compensatory time use. The Court denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and partially granted Plaintiff's cross-motion, deeming time spent on dog grooming, bathing, exercising, cleaning, training, as well as cleaning his firearm and vehicle, as compensable work. However, compensation for commuting and uniform cleaning was denied. Key issues, including the reasonableness of activities, the employer's knowledge of off-the-clock work, and whether the FLSA violation was willful, were reserved for trial, while the Defendant's request for a jury trial was granted, and Plaintiff was found entitled to liquidated damages if successful on his FLSA claims.

FLSAOvertime CompensationPolice OfficerK-9 UnitPolice DogOff-Duty WorkCompensatory TimeLiquidated DamagesSummary JudgmentWork Definition
References
31
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. ADJ11233967
Regular
Feb 07, 2019

DANIEL AIKIN vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The defendant, County of Orange Sheriff's Department, sought reconsideration of an award granting full salary in lieu of temporary disability benefits to a supervising deputy coroner, Daniel Aikin, for a knee injury. The department argued Aikin's position is not explicitly listed in Labor Code section 4850 and his duties do not clearly constitute active law enforcement. However, the Appeals Board affirmed the award, finding that Aikin, as a sworn peace officer with P.O.S.T. certification, engages in hazardous duties at crime scenes, carries law enforcement emblems, and has performed arrests, thus his functions fall within the scope of active law enforcement service. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Labor Code section 4850Supervising Deputy CoronerActive Law EnforcementSworn Peace OfficerP.O.S.T. CertificationCumulative Trauma InjuryLeft KneeTemporary DisabilitySalary ContinuationPetition for Reconsideration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seybert v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots

Plaintiff John R. Seybert, a member of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots (IOMM & P) union, filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and a breach of the duty of fair representation. Seybert contested his reclassification from Group A to Group B under a new union by-law, arguing it was a retroactive and punitive measure for his political activities. The union contended the rule was a reasonable method to allocate jobs to active seafarers. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, determining that the reclassification was not an unlawful disciplinary action under the LMRDA and did not constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment on the retroactivity claim, as the plaintiff offered no opposition.

Union DisputesLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentUnion By-lawsJob ClassificationHiring Hall RulesInternal Union PoliticsRetroactive ApplicationMember Reclassification
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haight v. THE WACKENHUT CORP.

Plaintiffs, a group of security officers led by Scott Haight, filed a lawsuit against Wackenhut Corporation alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for uncompensated preliminary and postliminary work activities. The disputed activities included tasks like donning/doffing protective gear, badging into secure areas, and collecting equipment before and after their shifts at the Indian Point Nuclear Facility. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing these activities were not compensable under FLSA as per established Second Circuit precedent. The Court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that the contested activities were not "integral" to the security officers' principal job duties and some were de minimis. Consequently, the claims related to these specific preliminary and postliminary activities were dismissed by the court.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActCompensable TimePreliminary ActivitiesPostliminary ActivitiesSummary JudgmentSecurity OfficersWackenhut CorporationIndian Point Nuclear Facility
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Field v. Trump

The case is a putative class action concerning a leveraged buy-out of Pay 'n Save Corporation. The plaintiff alleged violations of federal securities laws, RICO, and state common law. Specifically, Count I claimed that an unlawful premium was paid to Stroum and Sloan during a tender offer, violating Section 14(d)(7) and Rule 10b-13. Count II alleged breach of fiduciary duty and non-disclosure under federal securities laws. Count III accused defendants of a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no tender offer in effect for Count I, that Count II failed to state a federal securities claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and that Count III did not sufficiently allege a "pattern" of racketeering activity as the acts constituted a single, non-ongoing scheme. Pendent state law claims were dismissed, and leave to replead was denied.

Federal Securities LawsRICOLeveraged Buy-OutTender OfferClass ActionMotion to DismissRule 10b-13Williams ActBreach of Fiduciary DutyRacketeering Activity
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,164 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