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. ADJ7263382
Regular
Dec 24, 2015

Grace Navarro vs. CITY OF OXNARD HOUSING AUTHORITY, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, DELOS INSURANCE, IMPERIUM INSURANCE, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board reviewed a dispute over which insurance carrier was liable for applicant Grace Navarro's cumulative trauma injury. The initial arbitrator found only Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company liable, excluding Delos Insurance. Pennsylvania Manufacturers sought reconsideration, arguing Delos should share liability based on its coverage period. After reviewing the complete evidence, the Appeals Board affirmed the original arbitrator's decision, finding Pennsylvania Manufacturers solely liable.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDGRACE NAVARROCITY OF OXNARD HOUSING AUTHORITYPENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCEDELOS INSURANCEIMPERIUM INSURANCEATHENS ADMINISTRATORSADJ7263382RECONSIDERATIONCUMULATIVE TRAUMA
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laniok v. Advisory Committee of the Brainerd Manufacturing Co. Pension Plan

Plaintiff Peter Laniok sued his former employer, Brainerd Manufacturing Company, under ERISA for denying him pension benefits. Laniok argued the waiver he signed, which foreclosed his participation in the company's pension plan due to his age, was void against public policy and violated ERISA's age discrimination provisions and the ADEA. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the waiver was valid. The court determined that ERISA does not prohibit an employee from knowingly and voluntarily waiving pension rights and found no violation of ERISA's age discrimination provision or ADEA. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Brainerd Manufacturing Company.

ERISAPension BenefitsWaiverAge DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentEmployee RightsRetirement PlanDefined Benefit PlanPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Islip Resource Recovery Agency

This action stems from a contractual dispute regarding the construction of a waste disposal plant between Pennsylvania Energy Resources Company (PERC), Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation (PEC), and the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. Following an arbitrator's decision finding PERC in default, which was confirmed by the court on April 12, 1989, dismissing plaintiffs' case, PERC and PEC moved to reargue and amend their complaint. They sought to vacate the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator bias, attempting to relate back the amended complaint. The Court denied these motions, emphasizing that the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month statute of limitations for vacating an award has no common law or Rule 15(c) exceptions under these circumstances. The court further found that the plaintiffs were aware of potential bias at the time of selecting the arbitrator, thus precluding equitable tolling.

ArbitrationContractual DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActRule 15cRelation Back DoctrineEquitable TollingArbitrator BiasStatute of LimitationsMotion to Amend
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mera v. Adelphi Manufacturing Co.

Raphael Mera, an employee of Adelphi Manufacturing Co., Inc., was injured while operating a power press and accepted workers' compensation benefits. Mera and his wife subsequently sued Adelphi, alleging intentional harm by instructing employees to operate presses with removed safety guards. Adelphi moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was barred by workers' compensation law. The Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the order was reversed. The court held that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for employee injuries, and by accepting benefits, Mera forfeited his right to a common-law tort action. The court also found the allegations insufficient to meet the exception for intentional harm, and the claim was further barred by res judicata.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional Tort ExceptionRes JudicataAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury LitigationEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissOccupational InjuryNew York Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1990

Salvatore D'Amico v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

Salvatore D'Amico, a window-washer, sued for injuries after falling from a ladder at 4 New York Plaza. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from various parties. This appellate court modified that order, granting partial summary judgment to D'Amico against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. (building owner) and Cross and Brown Company (managing agent) under Labor Law §240(1), which imposes absolute liability for failing to provide adequate safety devices. The court found that the ladder's cracking established a prima facie case. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for MHT and Cross and Brown's indemnification claims against Allied Maintenance Corp. (D'Amico's employer), stating that Allied's liability for contribution would depend on the jury's apportionment of fault and the negligence of MHT and Cross and Brown.

Ladder AccidentSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityIndemnificationPremises LiabilityLabor Law §240(1)Window Washer InjuryWorker SafetyAppellate ReviewContributory Negligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

B. C. Manufacturing Co. v. Reiff

The case concerns an injunction sought by B. C. Manufacturing Co. Inc., a nonunion dress contractor, against Local 143 of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and its manager, Louis Reiff, to stop picketing of its Mount Vernon, N.Y., factory. The picketing began after a general strike in March 1958, initially seeking a union agreement and later urging employees to join the union. The court found evidence of abusive and disorderly conduct during the picketing, including massing, blocking ingress/egress, pushing, and verbal abuse. However, the court denied a general injunction against all peaceful picketing, ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to federal preemption under the Taft-Hartley Act, as the plaintiff's interstate commerce activities fall under NLRB's exclusive purview. Instead, a limited injunction was granted, restricting the number of pickets, prohibiting interference with employees, and forbidding abusive language.

Labor DisputePicketingInjunctionTaft-Hartley ActNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Interstate CommerceUnfair Labor PracticeUnionizationStranger PicketingCoercion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perth Amboy Drydock Co. v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance

This case concerns the interpretation of an insurance policy issued to Perth Amboy Drydock Co. by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance. The policy provided workmen's compensation and employer's liability coverage, primarily for 'shipwright work' employees. The core dispute revolved around an endorsement that expanded liability limits. While the endorsement's heading mentioned 'Masters or Members of the Crews of Vessels', a typewritten addendum at its foot broadened its application to 'Shipwright Work and operation of Tugboats'. The court affirmed the order and judgment, holding that the typewritten statement should prevail, resolving any ambiguity in favor of the insured. A dissenting opinion argued against this interpretation, asserting that the language was clear and restricted to maritime employees.

Insurance PolicyWorkmen's CompensationEmployer's LiabilityPolicy EndorsementContract InterpretationAmbiguityShipwright WorkMaritime LawAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.)

Appellant Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania (BCWP) appealed a Bankruptcy Court decision that denied its request for relief from an automatic stay in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of LTV Steel Company, Inc. BCWP, an insurance provider for LTV Steel's former constituent companies (J&L and Republic), sought to set off a $2.88 million refund it owed LTV/J&L against over $3 million in unreimbursed claims it paid as a participant in a national syndication arrangement for LTV/Republic. The Bankruptcy Court found no mutuality between BCWP and LTV Steel to permit the set-off under 11 U.S.C. § 553(a). BCWP argued for third-party beneficiary status and equitable principles. The District Court affirmed the denial, ruling that BCWP was not a third-party beneficiary and that allowing the set-off would create an inequitable preference for BCWP over other creditors.

BankruptcyAutomatic StaySet-offMutualityThird-Party BeneficiaryInsurance ContractsHealth Care BenefitsSyndication ArrangementEmployer-Employee BenefitsDebtor in Possession
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 681 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