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

Kelley v. Lynaugh

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning the validity of various absentee and special ballots cast in a November 5, 2013, general election for Councilmember, 4th Council District, Town of Brookhaven. Constance M. Kepert appealed parts of a Supreme Court order, and Michael A. Loguercio, Jr., cross-appealed other parts. The appellate court modified the lower court's determinations regarding the casting and canvassing of specific ballots. The modifications were based on voter intent derived from ballot markings, as well as adherence to Election Law regarding signature verification and timely ballot receipt. Ultimately, the court directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections not to cast or canvass ballots designated as exhibits 2, 8, and 17, and to cast and canvass ballots designated as exhibits 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Election DisputeBallot ValidityVoter IntentAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsCanvassing ProceduresElection Law Article 16Suffolk County ElectionsAppellate ReviewGeneral Election 2013
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05367 [174 AD3d 1017]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2019

Matter of City of Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen's Assn.)

The City of Plattsburgh, the appellant, appealed an order from the Supreme Court that denied its application to permanently stay arbitration with the Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen's Association. The dispute originated from a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which stipulated a minimum staffing level of 36 firefighters and prohibited layoffs. When a firefighter retired, reducing the staff to 35, the City refused to fill the vacancy, citing financial reasons, leading the Firemen's Association to demand arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the City's application to stay arbitration and granted the Association's motion to compel. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the disputed CBA provision was a job security clause. The court found that this clause did not explicitly demonstrate the City's intent to waive its right to reduce staffing for budgetary or economic reasons, thus violating public policy and rendering the dispute non-arbitrable. A concurring opinion further noted that the clause also violated public policy due to its unreasonable duration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJob Security ClausePublic PolicyStaffing LevelsFirefighters UnionBudgetary ConstraintsAppellate DivisionCPLR Article 75Stay Arbitration
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Sterling Die Casting Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Local 365 United Auto Workers Welfare and Pension Fund (the Fund) against Sterling Die Casting Company regarding the avoidance of a judgment lien under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(l)(4). The central issue is whether New York State practice regarding the docketing of judgments discriminates against federal court judgments. The Fund argued that its lien was created on the date of judgment in federal court, while Sterling contended it was created upon docketing with the county clerk, which fell within the 90-day preference period before its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Judge's decision, holding that New York's C.P.L.R. 5018(b) does not discriminate and that a lien is established only upon filing a transcript with the county clerk, serving the practical need for centralized record-keeping.

Judgment LienBankruptcy Code Section 547(b)(l)(4)Federal vs. State JudgmentsNew York Civil Practice Law and Rules 5018(b)28 U.S.C. Section 1962Docketing JudgmentsProperty LienSupremacy ClauseRetroactive DocketingEastern District of New York
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brayley v. Doehler-Jarvis Castings Division of NL Industries, Inc.

Petitioners, employees of Doehler-Jarvis Castings Division, faced plant closure in 1982 and chose enhanced retirement benefits over severance pay. They later commenced a proceeding under Executive Law § 296, alleging age discrimination after a second offer of severance was declined. The Administrative Law Judge's recommendation to dismiss for failure to prosecute was upheld by the Supreme Court and Executive Deputy Commissioner of SDHR. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding the severance plan was an employee welfare benefit plan preempted by ERISA, not falling under the Fort Halifax exception as it required ongoing administrative discretion. Furthermore, it concluded the plan did not violate the ADEA under the then-controlling Betts precedent, as the employment termination was unrelated to age.

Age DiscriminationERISA PreemptionSeverance PayRetirement BenefitsFailure to ProsecuteAdministrative Law JudgeOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanManagerial DiscretionExecutive Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cast Optics Corp. v. Textile Workers Union

Cast Optics Corp. sought a preliminary injunction against the Textile Workers Union of America (TWUA), the American Arbitration Association, and arbitrator Benjamin Wolfe to prevent a decision in a labor dispute. The dispute arose after the TWUA engaged in a job action and subsequent strike, leading the company to cease recognizing the union. The company argued the dispute was not arbitrable, citing reasons such as the union's alleged material breach of the no-strike clause, NLRB primary jurisdiction, waiver due to late filing, laches, and jurisdictional issues under the U.S. Arbitration Act. The District Court denied the company's motion, concluding that its arguments lacked merit and that issues concerning contract repudiation and procedural arbitrability were for the arbitrator to decide.

Labor DisputeArbitrationPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseRepudiation of ContractNLRB JurisdictionProcedural ArbitrabilityLachesUnited States Arbitration Act
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Lebron

This case involves an appeal concerning the permanent neglect of a child, Jason, placed in foster care in 1982 due to his parents' eviction and drug addiction. The Family Court found permanent neglect but dismissed the petitions, ruling the petitioner agency failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship. The appellate court affirmed the finding of permanent neglect, agreeing that the parents failed to plan for Jason's future or maintain regular contact. However, the court reversed the Family Court's finding on diligent efforts, concluding that the petitioner agency had, in fact, met its burden of proving diligent efforts despite the parents' chronic drug addiction and lack of cooperation. The court emphasized that an agency is not a guarantor of an uncooperative parent's success.

Permanent NeglectChild WelfareFoster CareParental RightsDiligent EffortsDrug AddictionRehabilitation ProgramsFamily Court AppealSocial Services LawParental Responsibility
References
9
Case No. ADJ8222803
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

Terry Lasko vs. Entertainment Partners, AIG, Cast & Crew, Zurich North America, Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision regarding contribution between two employers, Entertainment Partners and Cast & Crew. The WCAB modified the award, ordering Cast & Crew to contribute to future medical care for the applicant's left shoulder, finding substantial evidence of industrial injury. However, the WCAB affirmed the arbitrator's denial of Cast & Crew's contribution for temporary disability and future medical care for GERD, constipation, and high blood pressure due to insufficient evidence of industrial causation for those conditions. One commissioner dissented, arguing for Cast & Crew's contribution to future medical care for the internal conditions.

Cumulative TraumaContribution PetitionLabor Code Section 5500.5Compromise and ReleaseFuture Medical CareApportionmentPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceNon-Industrial InjuryIndustrial Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Harrington v. L.C. Whitford Co.

The claimant, a construction worker, experienced a severe exacerbation of pre-existing asthma after exposure to burning lead paint fumes in June 1996. A certified pulmonologist, Richard Evans, determined the exposure caused a permanent and total disability. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an accidental injury causing permanent and total disability, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed in August 2001. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the condition was pre-existing and only temporarily aggravated. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support that the work-site exposure significantly exacerbated the claimant's stabilized asthma, leading to a permanent and total disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityAsthma ExacerbationOccupational ExposureLead Paint FumesPre-existing ConditionMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident
References
14
Case No. LAO 838220
Regular
May 14, 2007

MARIA SERAFIN vs. LANSCO DIE CASTING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous award, and remanded the case to determine permanent disability using the 1997 Schedule. This decision stems from the Board's finding that the applicant's treating physician's December 20, 2004, report indicated the existence of permanent disability, triggering an exception under Labor Code section 4660(d). Consequently, the outdated 1997 Schedule, not the 2005 Schedule, must be applied to calculate the applicant's permanent disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria SerafinLansco Die CastingState Compensation Insurance FundLAO 838220ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJIndustrial InjuryRight Shoulder
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of VanDermark v. Frontier Insurance

In this workers' compensation appeal, the employer and its carrier challenged two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's permanent total disability. The claimant sustained a back injury in 1998 and was initially found to have a permanent partial disability. However, the Board later modified the award, concluding the claimant had a permanent total disability after August 2004, a finding supported by the testimony of her treating orthopedic surgeon despite conflicting medical evidence. The employer also contested the denial of their applications for reconsideration and/or full Board review, arguing insufficient evidence and an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, deferring to its resolution of conflicting medical evidence and finding no arbitrary or capricious action in denying reconsideration, as no new evidence was presented.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsBoard's DiscretionReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,291 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