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

Maxwell MacMillan Co., Inc. v. DISTRICT 65, UAW

The plaintiff, Macmillan, sought to stay arbitration initiated by District 65 concerning employee layoffs following Macmillan's acquisition of Prentice-Hall assets. District 65 argued that the layoffs breached an agreement to use seniority in layoff decisions, stemming from Prentice-Hall's unilaterally implemented final offer after its collective bargaining agreement expired. Macmillan contended there was no formal contract to arbitrate, as District 65 had never formally accepted Prentice-Hall's offer in writing. The court, however, ruled that District 65's continuation of work after Prentice-Hall's final offer constituted acceptance by conduct, creating an enforceable interim agreement. Consequently, the court granted District 65's motion for summary judgment, denying Macmillan's, and directed the parties to proceed with arbitration.

arbitrationlabor disputecollective bargaining agreementsummary judgmentcontract formationacceptance by conductinterim agreementsuccessor liabilitylayoff grievanceunion
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mauro v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

The case addresses whether a secured party, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), is liable for an assault committed by an independent contractor's employees, Anthony and Edward Russo from Tri-City Auto Recovery, during a vehicle repossession. Plaintiffs Maureen and John Mauro allege assault and battery, contending the repossession breached the peace. GMAC argued it was not liable due to Tri-City being an independent contractor. The court, citing UCC 9-503 and various precedents, ruled that the duty to repossess without a breach of the peace is nondelegable. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment by GMAC and Tri-City Auto Recovery, seeking dismissal of the complaint, were denied, establishing GMAC's potential liability for the actions of its independent contractor's employees.

RepossessionBreach of PeaceIndependent Contractor LiabilityUCC 9-503Nondelegable DutyAssault and BatterySummary JudgmentSecured TransactionsDebtor's RightsVicarious Liability
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01591 [159 AD3d 787]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2018

Bidnick v. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of N.Y.

Neal Bidnick, a long-standing member of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons, was expelled following Masonic trials, despite initial reversals by the Masonic Commission of Appeals. This action arose after the Grand Lodge reinstated a guilty finding at its annual meeting, leading to Bidnick's expulsion. Bidnick sued the Grand Lodge and individual defendants for breach of contract, alleging wrongful expulsion, and defamation, claiming false statements of misappropriation. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting the dismissal of the defamation claim against the Grand Lodge, denying dismissal of the defamation claim against individual defendants in their individual capacities, and denying the dismissal of the breach of contract claim. The court's decision addressed the application of Benevolent Orders Law and the _Martin_ rule concerning the liability of unincorporated associations and their members.

Breach of ContractDefamationExpulsionUnincorporated AssociationBenevolent Orders LawMasonic LodgeIndividual LiabilityRepresentative CapacityCPLR 3211 (a) (7) MotionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. ADJ9380444
Regular
May 03, 2017

CRANCE CLEMONS vs. INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and reversed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, finding jurisdiction over the applicant's claim. The WCAB determined that the applicant, a professional football player, was hired in California because his agent, located in California, accepted the employment offer on his behalf. This acceptance, despite the contract being signed in Texas, established jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305. The dissent argued that the record did not sufficiently establish the agent's location in California at the time of acceptance, thus precluding WCAB jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCrance ClemonsIndianapolis ColtsTravelers Indemnity CompanyADJ9380444Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3600.5Labor Code section 5305contract of hirehired in California
References
27
Case No. ADJ8064690
Regular
Aug 16, 2013

SHEILA MORA vs. TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORP., LIBERTY MUTUAL NORTHWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, reversing a prior decision that denied jurisdiction over an applicant's claim for an injury sustained in Alaska. The applicant, a California resident, received a conditional job offer via email to her California home, requiring her to travel to Seattle to sign employment documents and then proceed to Alaska for work. The Board found that the applicant's acceptance of the employment offer, by preparing to travel to Seattle based on the California-sent offer, constituted a contract of hire made in California, thus conferring jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 5305 and 3600.5(a).

Workers Compensation Appeals Boardjurisdictioncontract of hireindustrial injuryout-of-state injuryLabor Code 5305Labor Code 3600.5(a)residentpetition for reconsiderationfindings of fact
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conroy v. Anchor Sav. Bank, FSB

Plaintiff Lucille Conroy sued Anchor Savings Bank under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging age discrimination after her department was relocated and she was offered layoff instead of a Department Specialist position. Conroy, aged 56, was offered a transfer to Albion or a lower-grade Teller position in Bay Ridge, both of which she declined, opting for severance. A younger employee, Kissoon (age 34), was offered and accepted the Department Specialist position for which Conroy also believed she was qualified. The court, presided over by District Judge Johnson, granted summary judgment to Anchor Savings Bank, finding that Conroy established a prima facie case but failed to prove that age was a determinative factor or that Anchor's reasons for hiring Kissoon were pretextual. Anchor's motion for sanctions against Conroy's counsel was denied due to insufficient evidence of bad faith.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentADEAPrima Facie CasePretextDisparate TreatmentWorkforce ReductionRelocationSanctions
References
20
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. ADJ9041986
Regular
May 23, 2014

DANIELLE CHOTT vs. THE GAP, INC., SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY

This case concerns an applicant's attempt to rescind a compromise and release (C&R) agreement for a psyche injury claim. The applicant argued she withdrew her settlement offer before the defendant's claims specialist signed it. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the applicant's timely petition, finding the WCJ correctly rescinded the prior order approving the C&R. The Board concluded the applicant effectively revoked her offer before acceptance, and the defendant's subsequent actions supported rescission in the interest of justice.

Compromise and ReleaseRescissionPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5903Labor Code Section 5002Unilateral RescissionTimely PetitionGood CauseSubstantial Justice
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1998

Claim of Griffin v. Syracuse Rigging Co.

Claimant sustained compensable back injuries in 1987 and 1988 but continued working until a layoff in November 1994. He received unemployment benefits and then retired in May 1995, accepting a union pension and Social Security disability. His subsequent claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied due to voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, both for declining job offers between November 1994 and May 1995 and for retiring thereafter. The Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, which found voluntary withdrawal based on claimant's refusal of employment offers, lack of job search post-retirement, personal reasons for retirement, and physical capability for work, was affirmed. The Appellate Division found the Board's resolution to be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketUnemployment BenefitsDisability PensionRetirementSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBack InjuryDeclined Employment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,042 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