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

Melin v. Arcata Graphics

This Memorandum and Order addresses defendants' motions to dismiss a complaint filed by a former employee. The plaintiff alleges wrongful discharge by his employer, Areata Graphics, in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, and a breach of the duty of fair representation by his union, Graphic Arts International Union, Local 17-B, for failing to process his grievance. Defendants argued the claims were time-barred by the six-month limitations period of the National Labor Relations Act. The court, however, rejected this argument, relying on Second Circuit precedents that apply New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules' longer limitations periods (either three or six years) to such claims. Consequently, the court found the plaintiff's claims timely and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss.

Wrongful DischargeBreach of Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCivil Practice Law and RulesFederal JurisdictionSecond Circuit PrecedentEmployee Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Graphic Arts Mutual, an automobile liability insurer, and Bakers Mutual, a workers' compensation carrier, over which policy covers an employer's derivative liability in a third-party personal injury action. An employee of Chimes Cake Co. was injured by a co-employee's negligence, leading to a third-party claim against the employer under the Dole-Dow doctrine. Graphic disclaimed responsibility, citing policy exclusions for employee bodily injury and workers' compensation obligations. The court affirmed that Graphic's automobile policy covered the employer's vicarious liability to a third-party tort-feasor, as this obligation did not fall within the stated exclusions. The decision emphasizes a functional analysis of separate insurance lines, concluding that automobile liability should cover obligations arising from vehicle operation.

Insurance disputeAutomobile liabilityWorkers' compensationThird-party actionDeclaratory judgmentEmployer's liabilityVicarious liabilityDole-Dow doctrinePolicy exclusionsCo-employee negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Longo v. Graphic Packaging Corp.

The claimant, a maintenance mechanic, was employed from 1961 to 2001, last by Graphic Packaging Corporation, a subsidiary of Coors Brewing Company. In 2007, he was diagnosed with interstitial lung disease due to workplace asbestos exposure, establishing March 15, 2007, as the date of disablement for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that Zurich American Insurance Company, the carrier for Coors, was liable, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Zurich and Graphic Packaging appealed, contending they were denied the right to present proof and that there was a lack of substantial evidence regarding Coors' employer status and Zurich's liability. The court found that Zurich failed to present evidence despite notice and opportunities, and the claimant's uncontroverted testimony provided substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination.

Asbestos exposureInterstitial lung diseaseOccupational diseaseWorkers' compensation benefitsEmployer liabilityInsurance carrier liabilitySubstantial evidenceUncontroverted testimonyWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate review
References
3
Case No. ADJ8-481702
Regular
May 30, 2017

SALVATORE PUCCIO vs. ONLINE GRAPHICS AND FINISHING, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a worker who suffered orthopedic injuries from a fall and subsequently had a stroke in the hospital. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the stroke to be a compensable consequence of the industrial injury. This was based on the expert opinion that the necessity to withhold anticoagulation medication due to the orthopedic injuries directly increased the risk of the stroke. Therefore, the Board amended the original order to include the stroke as industrially caused, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Salvatore PuccioOnline Graphics and FinishingEmployers Compensation Insurance CompanyADJ8-481702Petition for ReconsiderationCompensable ConsequenceIndustrial InjuryAtrial FibrillationCerebral Vascular AccidentAnticoagulant Therapy
References
6
Case No. ADJ8481702
Regular
Aug 16, 2017

SALVATORE PUCCIO vs. ONLINE GRAPHICS AND FINISHING, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to overturn a prior decision that found the applicant's stroke was a compensable consequence of his admitted industrial injury. The Board found that the medical decision to withhold anticoagulation treatment for the applicant's pre-existing atrial fibrillation, due to the necessity of surgery for his industrial injury, was a contributing cause of his stroke. Therefore, the stroke was deemed a foreseeable and compensable consequence of the industrial injury.

Compensable consequenceStrokeAtrial fibrillationAnticoagulation treatmentMedical decisionIndustrial injuryPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Denying PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardNovel circumstance
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanchett v. Graphic Techniques, Inc.

Plaintiff L. Sue Hanchett was seriously injured in January 1991 while employed by James River Corporation. She and her husband filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against Richard Hicks, a design engineer assigned by Graphic Techniques, Inc., claiming he removed safety guards. Defendants moved to amend their answer to assert a Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity defense and for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, plaintiffs contested the amendment due to prejudice and argued Hicks was not a special employee. The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no undue prejudice and concluding that Hicks was indeed a special employee of James River, thereby making the Workers' Compensation Law the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy.

special employmentWorkers' Compensation Lawsummary judgmentpleading amendmentCPLR 3025 (b)negligencepersonal injuryexclusivity defenseappellate reviewSaratoga County
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Motise v. America Online, Inc.

Michael V. Motise initiated this action against America Online, Inc. in March 2004, alleging unlawful disclosure of his screen name. America Online moved to dismiss or transfer the case, citing a forum selection clause in its Member Agreement mandating disputes be heard in Virginia. The court examined whether Motise, as a user accessing his step-father's account, was bound by the clause despite lacking direct notice. The court affirmed the enforceability of the forum selection clause through a 'derivative rights theory,' establishing that Motise's access was contingent on his step-father's acceptance of the terms. Consequently, the case was ordered to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Forum selection clauseDerivative rightsConstructive noticeTerms of serviceTransfer of venueFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureInternet lawUser agreementContract enforceabilityJurisdiction
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04330 [151 AD3d 1127]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

Matter of Turner v. Graphic Paper Inc.

Claimant, a truck driver, sustained multiple work-related injuries between 2009 and 2012. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) classified him with a permanent partial disability and found a 66.7% loss of wage-earning capacity. Claimant sought reimbursement for medical and transportation expenses and challenged decisions regarding disputed medical bills. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his applications for review, finding that he failed to specify issues or grounds for review and that some issues were untimely raised. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concurring that the claimant's applications for review were deficient and that certain appeals were abandoned due to lack of arguments in the brief.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityAdministrative ReviewAppellate ProcedureApplication for ReviewTimelinessMedical ExpensesTravel ExpensesCounsel Fees
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gordon

The bankruptcy trustee moved to object to the classification of a $320 claim filed by the Department of Probation of the City of New York against Criterion Dyeing and Finishing Co. as a priority wage claim. The claim originated from a 1973 Family Court order directing the bankrupt employer to withhold an employee's wages for dependents' support, which the employer failed to remit due to a dishonored check. Citing United States v. Embassy Restaurant, the court determined that these deductions were not "money directly due to the wage earner in back wages" and therefore did not meet the criteria for priority status under the Bankruptcy Act. Consequently, the trustee's objection to the priority wage claim was sustained.

BankruptcyPriority ClaimWage ClaimChild SupportFamily CourtNew York LawDebtor-CreditorBankruptcy TrusteeClaim ObjectionUndistributed Wages
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 106 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