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
Mar 24, 1989

Marroquin v. American Trading Transportation Co.

Plaintiff Edmundo S. Marroquin was injured on November 8, 1985, while cleaning a cargo tank aboard the S.S. Washington Trader on the high seas. Marroquin was employed by third-party defendant Stevens Technical Services and the vessel was owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff American Trading Transportation Company. Marroquin initially sued American Trading for negligence and later added a cause of action for unseaworthiness. American Trading then instituted a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Stevens. Stevens moved for summary judgment, arguing that Marroquin's unseaworthiness claim was barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which would also dismiss American Trading's third-party action. The court denied Stevens' motion, finding that Marroquin was not covered by the LHWCA because he was the equivalent of a 'member of a crew' working on the high seas, not a land-based worker in port. Additionally, the LHWCA's geographical scope does not extend to injuries on the high seas during a long international voyage. Therefore, Marroquin could maintain his unseaworthiness claim, and American Trading could seek contribution or indemnification from Stevens.

Maritime LawUnseaworthiness ClaimLHWCA InapplicabilityHigh Seas InjurySeaman StatusThird-Party ActionSummary Judgment MotionVessel Cleaning CrewContribution and Indemnification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sprint Communications Co. v. Jasco Trading, Inc.

The case involves Plaintiffs Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Nextel Corporation, Boost Worldwide, Inc., and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (collectively 'Sprint') against Defendants Jasco Trading, Inc., Alan Savdie, YRB Trading Corp., and Yehudah Bodek. Plaintiffs initiated the action alleging various claims including breach of contract, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, stemming from an alleged 'Bulk Handset Trafficking Scheme.' The court considered two primary motions: Plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement agreement with the YRB Defendants and the YRB Defendants' motion to stay the case pending arbitration. Applying the Winston factors, the Court determined that no binding settlement agreement was reached, citing an implied reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a signed writing, disagreement on a material term, and the nature of such agreements typically requiring formalization. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement. The YRB Defendants' motion to stay for arbitration was also denied, but without prejudice, due to their denial of knowledge regarding the arbitration agreement and insufficient briefing on the merits.

Contract LawSettlement EnforceabilityOral AgreementsWinston FactorsArbitration ClauseMotion to EnforceMotion to StayBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionTrademark Infringement
References
69
Case No. ADJ296898 (LAO 0859148) ADJ1245833 (LAO 0882864)
Regular
Aug 28, 2013

GEORGINA HERNANDEZ vs. PIONEER TRADING, INC./OMNI FOODS, GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, as administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pioneer Trading, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration in this matter. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, noting that the original award did not preclude a compromise and release. Furthermore, over a month had passed since the petition without a settlement being filed, and no effort was made to inform the WCJ of the alleged settlement agreement.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardcompromise and releaseadministrative law judgeWCJsettlement agreementverified petitionDENIEDGEORGINA HERNANDEZ
References
0
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06963
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v. New York State Dept. of Labor

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's prevailing wage law, Labor Law § 220 (3-e), concerning apprentice wages on public work projects. The International Union of Painters & Allied Trades and glazing contractors challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) policy which stipulates that apprentices must perform tasks within their registered trade classification to be paid apprentice rates. Plaintiffs argued this policy increased costs and limited on-the-job training for glazier apprentices whose curriculum included tasks classified as ironwork. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the DOL's interpretation as rational. The Court reasoned that the statute's language was ambiguous, and the DOL's policy prevented employers from using apprentices as cheap labor outside their specific trade, thereby ensuring proper training and maintaining construction standards.

Prevailing Wage LawApprentice WagesPublic Work ProjectsGlazier ApprenticesIronworker TasksStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceLabor Law § 220Trade ClassificationWorkforce Development
References
17
Case No. 08 Civ. 10467; 10 Civ. 6067
Regular Panel Decision

Astra Oil Trading NV v. PRSI Trading Co. LP

Astra Oil Trading N.Y. (AOT) filed two actions against PRSI Trading Company L.P. (PRSI Trading) seeking indemnification and attachment of funds related to a $156 million guarantee payment. PRSI Trading moved to dismiss both actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to vacate the attachment, also requesting damages and attorneys' fees. The court granted dismissal for the first action (08 Civ. 10467) due to a lack of diversity jurisdiction at the time of filing, which a subsequent change in defendant's ownership could not remedy. However, it denied dismissal for the second action (10 Civ. 6067), noting proper diversity existed at its filing. The court allowed a new attachment in the second action to preserve the status quo, citing the defendant's continuous delays and acknowledged debt. Furthermore, the court denied PRSI Trading's claims for damages and attorneys' fees for wrongful attachment, emphasizing AOT's good faith and the complex legal issues surrounding corporate citizenship for diversity purposes.

Diversity JurisdictionAttachment OrderIndemnification ClaimCorporate CitizenshipPrincipal Place of BusinessSubject Matter JurisdictionAlien CorporationsArbitration Award EnforcementCollateral EstoppelWrongful Attachment
References
52
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2003

In re the Claim of Burdick

The claimant, a model builder for Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc. in Rochester, Monroe County, voluntarily participated in a retirement incentive program and separated from employment on November 1, 2002. Valeo had filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and was approved to move its compressor production operations to Mexico, leading to a reduction in its labor force. Following his separation, the claimant applied for a trade readjustment allowance under the federal Trade Act of 1974. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his application, ruling that his separation was for a reason other than lack of work. The appeal ensued, and the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it rational based on testimony that the claimant had sufficient seniority and would not have been among those involuntarily eliminated had he not elected the incentive program.

Trade Readjustment AllowanceUnemployment BenefitsVoluntary SeparationSeniorityBankruptcyWorkforce ReductionAppellate ReviewTrade Act of 1974Employment LawNew York State
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pizer v. Trade Union Service, Inc.

The plaintiff, as president of a labor union, initiated an action seeking to obtain a roster of the union membership from an independent trade newspaper. The defendant, currently possessing the list, was instructed by the union's secretary-treasurer not to release it to the plaintiff due to an internal union dispute concerning the plaintiff's authority and alleged personal use of the list. The defendant's contract with the union did not explicitly provide for such delivery. The Special Term had previously granted a temporary injunction compelling the defendant to surrender the list. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that a mandatory injunction pendente lite is an extraordinary measure justified only in unusual situations to maintain the status quo, which was not the case here given the sharp factual dispute. The court denied the motion and emphasized the need for a speedy plenary trial.

Labor Union DisputeTemporary InjunctionMandatory InjunctionPendente LiteTrade NewspaperMembership RosterUnion FactionsAuthority DisputeAppellate DivisionReversal
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03233
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Matter of Shankar (Trillium Trading, LLC)

Nalin Shankar, an unlicensed trader for Trillium Trading, LLC, applied for unemployment insurance benefits after leaving his position. The Department of Labor determined he was an employee, making Trillium liable for unemployment insurance contributions. Trillium appealed, contending Shankar was a 'profit only' member, not an employee, and that the Department's initial determination constituted de facto rulemaking. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the Department's finding, citing substantial evidence of an employment relationship due to Trillium's control over Shankar's work. The Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld the Board's decision, also rejecting the de facto rulemaking argument, stating that initial determinations are fact-based and not general applicability rules requiring publication.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorProfit Only Membership AgreementAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDe Facto RulemakingState Administrative Procedure ActControl Test
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 350 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