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

HANMANN v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff Craig Hanmann initiated an action against his employer, Metro-North Commuter Railroad, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence for injuries sustained at work and subsequent exacerbation due to delayed authorization for back surgery. Hanmann claimed Metro-North failed to provide a safe workplace and suitable tools, and that its Claims Department improperly interfered with the medical authorization process, prolonging his pain and suffering. Metro-North sought partial summary judgment, contending that the 'interference' claim constituted a 'minor' labor dispute governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), thus placing it outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court rejected this argument, ruling that the plaintiff’s claim was rooted in negligence, not a collective bargaining agreement interpretation, and was therefore within the scope of FELA. Consequently, the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

FELARLASummary JudgmentNegligenceBack InjuryMedical AuthorizationEmployer LiabilityMinor DisputePersonal InjuryRailroad Worker
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1997

Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiffs, 25 current or former Metro-North employees, filed two class action lawsuits alleging employment discrimination based on race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various New York State laws against Metro-North Commuter Railroad. They sought class certification for "all African-American employees of defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad from 1983 through 1996." The Court consolidated the two actions but subsequently denied the motion for class certification. The denial was based on the plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The Court found that the plaintiffs' statistical data and sociological opinion were insufficient to establish company-wide discriminatory practices, and individual claims varied significantly, thus lacking typicality for such a broad class.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationClass ActionClass Certification DenialFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23Commonality RequirementTypicality RequirementStatistical EvidenceSociological OpinionTitle VII
References
19
Case No. 69
Regular Panel Decision

Hewitt v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff Donovan Hewitt sued Metro-North Commuter Railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for shoulder and arm injuries attributed to unsafe work conditions as a coach cleaner. Metro-North responded with a Daubert motion to exclude Hewitt's ergonomics expert, Dr. Andres, alleging unreliability, and a motion for partial summary judgment, claiming Dr. Sasson's (treating orthopedic surgeon) testimony was dependent on Dr. Andres's. The Court, referencing varying precedents on ergonomics expert testimony, deemed Dr. Andres qualified and his opinions, based on sufficient facts and accepted methodologies, largely admissible. Consequently, Metro-North's motions to exclude expert testimonies and for partial summary judgment were denied, though Dr. Andres was prohibited from stating legal conclusions on causation or negligence.

FELAErgonomicsExpert TestimonyDaubert MotionSummary JudgmentWorkplace InjuryRailroad SafetyMedical CausationBioengineeringOrthopedic Surgery
References
53
Case No. ADJ19302164
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

CHRISTOPHER GOWEN vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; permissibly SELF-INSURED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the City of Los Angeles Police Department. The petition challenged an arbitrator's decision to grant a partial commutation of permanent disability payments to applicant Christopher Gowen, which was intended to cover costs for building his home in Missouri after a significant income loss due to industrial injury. The Appeals Board adopted the arbitrator's reasoning, finding the commutation was within discretion and based on legitimate need, particularly for building materials and construction overruns not covered by the original loan. The decision affirmed the partial commutation of approximately $66,334.98 from the applicant's outstanding permanent disability award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Arbitrator's ReportElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSTransmission DateNotice of TransmissionPetition for CommutationPermanent Disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbanti v. MTA Metro North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff Robert Barbanti, formerly an Electronic Specialist at Norfolk Southern Railroad, claims he was fraudulently induced by MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad (Defendant) to leave his job for a supervisory Signal Inspector position with specific pay. Despite being initially hired as a Signal Inspector, a collective bargaining agreement and a subsequent letter agreement with Local 166 led to him being placed in a lower-paying Electronic Technician role. Barbanti sued for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and negligent/reckless misrepresentation in state court, a case which the Defendant removed to federal court arguing preemption by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The court ruled that Barbanti's state law claims are not preempted by the RLA because their resolution does not require the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, as the rights and obligations at issue exist independently of any such agreement. Consequently, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Railway Labor ActPreemptionFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractNegligent MisrepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputesFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMotion to Remand
References
13
Case No. 866 F.Supp.2d 196
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2011

Howard v. MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Wendell Howard, an African-American locomotive engineer trainee, sued his former employer, MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad, for racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following his termination from a training program. Howard alleged discriminatory treatment by his instructors regarding test answers and derogatory remarks, and that his termination for leaving his worksite without proper authorization and insubordination was pretextual. He also claimed other non-African-American trainees were not disciplined similarly. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MTA Metro-North, finding that Howard failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. Subsequently, Howard filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), citing alleged mistakes, fraud by the defendants, and newly discovered evidence concerning other trainees. The court denied this motion, concluding that Howard's arguments were either rearguments of prior points, lacked clear and convincing evidence of fraud, or the "new evidence" was either available during discovery or not sufficiently convincing to warrant relief.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantMotion to Vacate JudgmentRule 60(b)Pretext for DiscriminationLocomotive Engineer Training Program
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldwater v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Elaine Goldwater, an administrative assistant for Metro-North Commuter Railroad, filed suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and state negligence law after being assaulted at a Metro-North station while traveling to an off-site meeting. Metro-North moved for summary judgment, arguing the "commuter rule" barred the FELA claim and that it owed no duty to protect Goldwater from third-party criminal acts under state law. The court granted summary judgment, determining Goldwater's commute did not fall under any FELA "commuter rule" exceptions as she was not compensated for travel, on-call, or compelled to use Metro-North's trains. Additionally, the court found Metro-North, as a quasi-governmental entity, did not have a special relationship with Goldwater, thus owing her no special duty of protection beyond that owed to the general commuting public for the alleged negligence in station design and maintenance.

Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)Commuter Rule ExceptionSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party AssaultRailroad NegligenceGovernmental Entity DutySpecial Relationship DoctrineScope of EmploymentPremises LiabilityEmployee Injury
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1994

United Transportation Union Local Unions 385 & 77 v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by the United Transportation Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (collectively, 'the Union') against Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company ('Metro'). The Union challenges Metro's Rule P as a violation of 45 U.S.C. § 60 (Section 60) of the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). Rule P restricts employees from divulging company information or giving statements about accidents to external parties without company authorization, which the Union argues prevents employees from voluntarily furnishing information to interested parties as protected by Section 60. Metro moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute is governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and its exclusive grievance resolution procedures. The court denied Metro's motion, concluding that the Union's claim involves the interpretation of a federal statute (Section 60) and is therefore within federal jurisdiction, not preempted by the RLA.

Federal Employer's Liability ActFELARailway Labor ActRLASubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentRule 12(b)Labor DisputesCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemption
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 2,531 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