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

In Re the Arbitration Between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 & Village of Johnson City

This case addresses whether a 'no-layoff' clause in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Village of Johnson City and its firefighter union was subject to arbitration. The Village abolished six firefighter positions citing budgetary necessity, leading the Johnson City Professional Fire Fighters, Local 921 IAFF, to file a grievance and seek to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed lower court decisions that had compelled arbitration. The court held that the no-layoff clause was not arbitrable because it failed to explicitly, unambiguously, and comprehensively protect against job abolition due to budgetary reasons. The term 'layoff' was deemed ambiguous and undefined within the CBA, rendering the dispute non-arbitrable on public policy grounds, thereby granting the Village's application to stay arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Layoff ClausePublic PolicyBudgetary StringenciesJob SecurityMunicipal EmploymentContract InterpretationUnion GrievanceFirefighters
References
5
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24048 [3 Misc 3d 347]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Johnson v. Hudson Riv. Constr. Co., Inc.

This case addresses motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Hudson River Construction Co., Inc., Albany Asphalt & Aggregates Corp., and Robert C. Higley. The plaintiff, Carlynann V. Johnson, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Warren D. Johnson, sought damages for the death of Warren D. Johnson, who was crushed by a truck at a construction site. Defendants argued that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 limited their liability to reckless conduct, eliminating a duty of care. The court denied the motions, holding that defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of duty to Johnson as an employee at a construction site and misapplied VTL § 1103, which does not apply to construction workers. The court also found that the defendants failed to establish that Johnson was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Summary Judgment MotionNegligence ActionConstruction Site FatalityWorkplace Safety DutyVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate Cause DisputeThird-Party LiabilityWrongful Death ClaimEmployer ResponsibilityHighway Construction Accident
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Astrue

Thomas Johnson, a pro se plaintiff, sued the Commissioner of Social Security after his application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was denied. The District Court, presided over by Judge Telesca, reviewed the ALJ's decision, which found Johnson not disabled despite acknowledging his 'severe' conditions. The court determined that the ALJ improperly evaluated Johnson's schizophrenia, finding it to be a 'listed impairment' under SSA regulations, fulfilling criteria for marked difficulties in social functioning, concentration, persistence, and pace. The court concluded that Johnson's schizophrenia was independently disabling, despite his substance abuse and his own testimony downplaying his mental health issues, and thus reversed the Commissioner's decision, granting judgment to Johnson and remanding the case for calculation of benefits.

SchizophreniaDisability BenefitsSocial Security ActMental ImpairmentResidual Functional CapacityALJ Decision ReviewAppeals CouncilDIBSSIParanoid Schizophrenia
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Kay

This opinion addresses a motion by Edward Kay, Secretary/Treasurer of Local 1199, to vacate an order issued by Special Master Eric Schmertz. The order directed Kay's faction to pay for Georgiana Johnson, President of Local 1199, to rent the Beacon Theatre for a general delegates meeting. This dispute is part of an ongoing power struggle between Johnson's and Kay's union factions. Kay challenged the Special Master's order on grounds of jurisdiction, standards for injunctive relief, and compliance with Rule 53. The court denied Kay's motion, affirming its jurisdiction based on federal labor law (LMRDA) and the prior involvement of the court. It also found that Johnson had demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits for injunctive relief, emphasizing the importance of communication rights within the union.

Union leadership disputeLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLMRDAIntra-union free speechPreliminary injunctionSpecial MasterUnion delegate assemblyExecutive Council powerCommunication rightsUnion constitutional dispute
References
5
Case No. 2016-3058 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2018

Johnson v. Hartford Ins. Co.

Hubert I. Johnson appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which denied his motion to vacate a prior order entered May 19, 2015. The May 19, 2015 order had granted Hartford Insurance Company's motion to vacate a default judgment against it and dismissed Johnson's complaint with prejudice, after Johnson failed to oppose the motion. Johnson's current action sought the same sum and was based on the same claim as a previous, discontinued action. The Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Johnson failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious cause of action. The court also noted that Johnson's current claim was precluded by res judicata, as it was identical to a claim already asserted and dismissed in a prior action.

Default JudgmentVacate OrderRes JudicataAppellate ReviewCivil CourtMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation ClaimPro Se AppellantStipulationPrior Action Dismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 1994

Whirlpool Corp. v. Philips Electronics, N.V.

This case involves Whirlpool Corporation seeking to confirm a foreign arbitral award against Philips Electronics N.V., while Philips moved to dismiss or stay the action pending further arbitration. The dispute arose from a joint venture and subsequent acquisition of Philips' Argentine MDA operations by Whirlpool, specifically concerning the revaluation of fixed assets and the applicable accounting policies under their Reorganization and Purchase Agreement (RPA) and Amendment No. 1. An initial arbitration before Arthur Andersen & Co. ruled in favor of Whirlpool, determining that Schedule G of the RPA, which limited asset revaluation, applied despite Philips' arguments for a different "Schedule G (Argentina)." The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, affirmed Andersen's jurisdiction and the validity of its binding award. Consequently, Whirlpool's motion to confirm the foreign arbitral award was granted, and Philips' motion to dismiss or stay the action was denied.

Arbitral Award ConfirmationForeign ArbitrationContract DisputeAccounting PoliciesAsset ValuationJoint VentureCorporate AcquisitionFederal Arbitration ActDispute ResolutionJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

Matter of Johnson (Commissioner of Labor)

Pamela Johnson appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which charged her with a recoverable overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits, Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC), and Lost Wage Assistance (LWA). Johnson, a banquet bartender, began receiving a union pension, fully funded by her base period employer, effective May 1, 2020, while concurrently collecting unemployment benefits. The Department of Labor subsequently reduced her weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero, effective July 6, 2020, pursuant to Labor Law § 600 (1), as her prorated weekly pension amount exceeded her weekly unemployment benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that the conditional payment of unemployment insurance benefits prior to verification is subject to review and recovery of an overpayment, even when the claimant is not at fault and has made appropriate disclosures. Therefore, Johnson was properly charged with recoverable overpayments for all categories of benefits received.

Unemployment BenefitsPension OffsetOverpayment RecoveryFederal Pandemic BenefitsCARES Act PaymentsLabor Law ApplicationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationAdministrative AppealUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board Decision
References
14
Case No. 01 Civ. 2835
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Eastchester Union Free School District

Oswald Johnson, a 69-year-old cleaner, sued the Eastchester Union Free School District for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after his job location and hours were changed. The school district moved for summary judgment, arguing Johnson failed to establish an adverse employment action or an inference of discrimination. The court found that mere inconvenience from a lateral transfer and shift change, without a reduction in wages or altered job responsibilities, does not constitute a materially adverse employment action. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence did not support an inference of age discrimination, as other employees of varying ages also experienced job assignment changes, and the decision-maker was also over 40. The court also found the mandatory physical examination, which revealed Johnson's cataracts, was job-related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the court granted summary judgment to the Eastchester Union Free School District, dismissing the complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionDisparate TreatmentADEALateral TransferShift ChangePhysical ExaminationPrima Facie Case
References
29
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00839
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Mena (Philips Bryant Park LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Giovanni Mena applied for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing to work as a doorman/bottle host for Philips Bryant Park LLC. The Department of Labor initially determined he was an employee and Philips was liable for contributions. After a series of appeals and remittals, including Philips' initial default, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially overruled the Department's finding. However, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately upheld the ALJ's later decision, which sustained the Department's initial determination of an employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence to support the employment relationship based on factors such as Philips setting claimant's schedule and rate of pay, requiring him to punch a time clock, and controlling aspects of his work. The Board's finding that the employment relationship applied to similarly situated individuals was also affirmed.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent Contractor StatusSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentControl TestAdministrative Law JudgeUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardParty Promoters
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2007

Johnson v. Ebidenergy, Inc.

This appellate case concerns two consolidated personal injury actions arising from an electrical accident. Plaintiffs David M. Johnson and George D. Johnson sustained burns when a fuse David was installing exploded. David was an employee of a subcontractor hired by Ebidenergy, Inc. to install metering equipment for Yonder Farms Fruit Distributors, LLC. George, who was an employee of AMS Contracting, was incidentally on site to retrieve paperwork. The court reviewed summary judgment motions, ultimately modifying the Supreme Court's order by dismissing certain third-party complaints and Labor Law causes of action, while affirming other aspects. The decision clarified the applicability of Labor Law provisions, particularly regarding 'altering' a building and contractor liability, and the employment status of George D. Johnson under the Labor Law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawStatutory InterpretationContractor LiabilityThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewElectrical AccidentWorkplace SafetyIndustrial Code
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 340 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