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. ADJ7690958
Regular
Jul 17, 2012

MICHEL SALMO vs. PHASE II TRANSPORTATION, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision. The judge found the applicant, Michel Salmo, to be an independent contractor, not an employee of Phase II Transportation, at the time of his alleged injury. This finding was based on the judge's assessment of Salmo's testimony as unreliable and contradictory regarding his truck ownership and lease arrangements. The Board adopted the judge's report and recommendations, emphasizing the great weight given to credibility findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.independent contractoremployeeemployment relationshiplease agreementowner-operatorcontrol
References
1
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Decker v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including the United Transportation Union and Local 377, initiated an action in state court against CSX Transport, Inc. (CSXT), alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions related to CSXT's planned sale of a rail line. CSXT moved for dismissal, contending that the plaintiffs' notice was barred by a national agreement moratorium, Local 377 lacked standing, the carrier held a unilateral right to sell lines, and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) preempted RLA Section 6. Conversely, plaintiffs asserted that the National Mediation Board had docketed their dispute as major, the sale was a tactic to circumvent RLA provisions, and the moratorium did not apply to them due to local bargaining representation. The court, drawing parallels with Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. Staten Island Railroad Corp., determined that the ICC's authorization of the sale brought the matter under its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court found itself unable to provide a remedy without interfering with the ICC's order and granted CSXT's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Railway Labor ActStatus Quo ProvisionsMotion to DismissRail Line SaleInterstate Commerce CommissionPreemptionCollective BargainingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefJurisdiction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hemmings v. St. Marks Housing Associates, Phase II L.P.

The case involves an appeal concerning a plaintiff who was injured on a demolition site in January 1991, allegedly struck by a falling beam. The plaintiff sued the property owner, St. Marks Housing Assoc., Phase II L.P., and general contractor, Blakel Construction Corp., alleging negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the appellate court reversed this, ruling that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently establish the manner of the accident due to a lack of corroborating evidence beyond his deposition testimony. The appeal from Blakel regarding a caption amendment and a cross-appeal from L.C. Drywall Corp. were dismissed on procedural grounds, with the order being modified and affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary Judgment ReversalConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectIndemnification ClaimsProcedural DismissalSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate PracticeWitness Hearsay
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100

Ainsley Stewart sued the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100, and Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, for allegedly unpaid wages, including overtime, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and New York common law. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by res judicata due to a previous lawsuit (Stewart I). The Court converted the defendant's motion to one for summary judgment and denied it, finding that the claims in Stewart II did not involve the same "nucleus of operative fact" as Stewart I. The Court noted that the parties' expectations during Stewart I litigation indicated separate issues, the factual predicates were not substantially identical, and a judgment in Stewart II would not impair rights from Stewart I. Additionally, the Court held that claims arising after the filing of Stewart I would not be barred by res judicata.

Res JudicataClaim PreclusionFair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawUnpaid WagesOvertime CompensationUnion DisputeLabor LawSummary Judgment
References
33
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01944 [226 AD3d 836]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2024

Ragusa v. Drazie's Farm II, LLC

The plaintiff, Matthew Ragusa, appealed an order denying his cross-motion to amend the complaint to add Drazie's Farm, LLC as a defendant and granting summary judgment to Drazie's Farm II, LLC on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the relation-back doctrine did not apply because Drazie's Farm II, LLC and Drazie's Farm, LLC were separate entities with potentially different defenses, thus not united in interest. Furthermore, Drazie's Farm II, LLC established that it did not own the property where the accident occurred and therefore could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)A-frame ladderfall from heightpremises liabilityrelation-back doctrinesummary judgmentlimited liability companyproperty ownershipadjoining properties
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schreiber v. K-Sea Transportation Corp.

Nicholas Schreiber, a seaman employed by K-Sea Transportation, sustained injuries. After receiving maintenance and medical expenses, he agreed to K-Sea's arbitration program for further claims in exchange for advance wages. Following a deterioration of his condition and additional surgeries, Schreiber sued K-Sea under the Jones Act. K-Sea initiated arbitration, but Schreiber sought to stay it due to the substantial filing fees and his claim of being unaware of his rights. The Supreme Court granted a permanent stay, deeming the agreement unconscionable and a waiver of jury trial rights. This appellate court reversed, finding the agreement was not a release and the financial burden was speculative. The case was remanded to the Supreme Court for a hearing to determine if Schreiber's waiver of Jones Act rights and agreement to arbitrate was freely and knowingly entered into, considering his status as a ward of admiralty.

Jones ActArbitration AgreementSeaman InjuriesPersonal Injury ClaimWaiver of RightsFederal Arbitration ActEmployment ContractsAppellate ReviewRemand for HearingMaritime Law
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01785
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2017

Henvill v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Winston Henvill appealed the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his petition to vacate an arbitration award, which resulted in the termination of his employment. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion to dismiss Henvill's complaint and denied his petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award based on a finding of misconduct. Henvill argued that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Benevolent Association (PBA) breached its duty of fair representation and that the arbitrator's fact-finding was irrational. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding no evidence that the PBA's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Furthermore, the court emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited to statutory grounds and does not permit reviewing the arbitrator's findings of fact.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationArbitration AwardEmployment TerminationMisconductCPLR Article 75Vacatur of Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Hare v. General Marine Transport Corp.

In this opinion, the District Court denied General Marine Transport Corporation's motion to amend a prior judgment that awarded damages to the Trustees of the New York Marine Towing and Transportation Industry Pension Fund and Insurance Fund. General Marine sought to amend the judgment based on the recent Supreme Court ruling in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, arguing for the application of a six-month limitations period. The court determined that DelCostello specifically applies to "hybrid 301/fair representation" claims and does not necessitate a departure from the previously applied six-year New York state statute of limitations for breach of contract actions, citing Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp. Therefore, the motion was denied, reaffirming the earlier decision.

Motion to Amend JudgmentStatute of LimitationsLabor LawBreach of ContractFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations ActHybrid 301/Fair Representation ClaimsPension FundInsurance Fund
References
16
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03868 [206 AD3d 468]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2022

Gonzalez v. DOLP 205 Props. II, LLC

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff Christian Gonzalez had sought summary judgment on liability after sustaining injuries from a fall while working on stilts. Defendant DOLP 205 Properties II LLC also moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of negligence claims and contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Amick Construction Corp., as well as for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment due to triable issues of fact concerning the scope of his duties and whether his actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Additionally, the Appellate Division denied DOLP's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract for failure to procure insurance claim against Amick, deeming it premature. The remainder of the Supreme Court's order, including the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against DOLP and the grant of contractual indemnification against Amick, was affirmed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardSafety DevicesContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceProximate CauseTriable Issues of FactAppellate Review
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,115 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