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

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) moved to lift the automatic stay imposed during Eastern Air Lines, Inc.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. ALPA sought to continue three arbitration proceedings related to a pay-parity provision in their collective bargaining agreement, which had been automatically stayed. The court considered the federal policy favoring labor arbitration, the potential impact on the bankruptcy estate, and the willingness of arbitrators to allow the Official Unsecured Creditor’s Committee to participate. Finding that 'cause' existed to modify the stay and noting the availability of claims estimation under 11 U.S.C. § 502(c) as a safeguard against undue delay, the court granted ALPA's motion, allowing the arbitration proceedings to resume.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsAutomatic Stay ReliefLabor ArbitrationCollective BargainingRailway Labor ActPay Parity GrievanceChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' Committee ParticipationSection 362(d)Dispute Resolution
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peros v. Grace Line, Inc.

Mile Peros, a longshoreman employed by Grace Line, Inc., sought damages for injuries sustained on the S.S. SANTA LUISA, owned by Grace Line, Inc. He filed an action at law against Grace Line, Inc. and a proceeding in admiralty against the ship and Grace Line, Inc. as claimant. The defendant moved to dismiss the actions, arguing that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy. Peros countermoved to strike these defenses. The court, citing precedent from Reed v. S.S. Yaka and similar cases, denied the respondent's motion and granted the libelant's motion, concluding that Yaka controlled despite the defendant being the actual owner and stevedore employer.

LongshoremenHarbor WorkersCompensation ActAdmiraltyMaritime LawPersonal InjuryExclusive RemedyShipownerEmployer LiabilityMotion Practice
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01314 [180 AD3d 969]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2020

Alexandridis v. Van Gogh Contr. Co.

Theodoros Alexandridis, an injured plaintiff, brought an action against Van Gogh Contracting Company, Van Gogh Painting Corp., Van Gogh Construction Corp. (collectively Van Gogh defendants), and Christopher Meskouris and Filantey Meskouris (collectively Meskouris defendants) after sustaining injuries from a ladder fall at the Meskouris defendants' home. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, denying the Van Gogh defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims due to triable issues of fact regarding their contractor status and control over the worksite. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Meskouris defendants on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, citing their failure to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition. It also affirmed the Meskouris defendants' summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) based on the homeowner's exemption.

Personal injuryLadder accidentConstructionHomeowner's exemptionLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentTriable issues of fact
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pereda v. Grace Line, Inc.

This case involves a stevedore who brought an action for personal injuries against Grace Line, Inc., the owner of a ship where the accident occurred. The stevedore, while carrying bananas, fell from a ramp improvised from loose planks. The claim was based on negligence, not unseaworthiness. The court found no evidence that the manner in which the ramp was formed, of loose planks, was contrary to good or accepted practice. Consequently, the complaint against defendant Grace Line, Inc. was dismissed, modifying a previous judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the third-party defendants against third-party plaintiff Grace Line, Inc.

Personal InjuryStevedoreNegligenceShip AccidentWorkplace SafetyRamp AccidentLoose PlanksComplaint DismissalAppellate DecisionThird-Party Claim
References
0
Case No. ADJ12705097
Regular
Sep 21, 2022

FRED BROYLES vs. ATLAS VAN LINES, ARCH INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

In Broyles v. Atlas Van Lines, the WCAB denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding of 29% permanent disability. The Administrative Law Judge and the Board found that the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) properly utilized the Almaraz/Guzman principles to deviate from a strict AMA Guides rating. The QME's analogy to a hernia condition was deemed substantial evidence for assessing the applicant's impairment due to limitations on lifting and its impact on daily living activities. The Board concluded the QME adequately explained the departure from the standard rating and provided sufficient reasoning for the alternative assessment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4660.1(d)scheduled ratingprima facie evidencerebuttableMilpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Almaraz-Guzman IIIwhole person impairment (WPI)AMA Guides
References
3
Case No. ADJ1063483 (SBR 0342621)
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

SONG ROGERS (Deceased); RICHARD ROGERS, vs. ALLIED VAN LINES, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves Allied Van Lines seeking reconsideration of a prior order finding their employee, Song Rogers (now deceased), sustained a work-related injury. The employer argued the finding was based solely on the inconsistent testimony of the deceased's husband regarding employment details. The Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's findings that the husband's testimony was credible despite apparent inconsistencies. The Board emphasized the judge's opportunity to assess witness demeanor as critical to the credibility determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAllied Van LinesTransguard Insurance Company of AmericaSong RogersRichard RogersFindings and OrderDarren Bergey M.D.employee statuscredibility determinationdeposition testimony
References
0
Case No. ADJ699427 (VEN 0109830) ADJ4450046 (VEN 0110322)
Regular
May 01, 2009

DOUGLAS STEPHENSON vs. ATLAS VAN LINES, NORTHRIDGE MOVING STORAGE, BROADSPIRE BREA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Douglas Stephenson's workers' compensation claim against Atlas Van Lines and its insurers. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order denying reconsideration of a previous decision. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report in making its decision. Therefore, Stephenson's petition for reconsideration has been denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJDENYING RECONSIDERATIONATLAS VAN LINESNORTHRIDGE MOVING STORAGEBROADSPIRESTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDADJ699427
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Flight Engineers’ International Association (FEIA) filed an action under the Railway Labor Act against Pan American World Airways (Pan Am) seeking a preliminary injunction. The unions aimed to compel Pan Am to revert to non-concessionary "white pages" agreements after January 1, 1985, arguing that prior "pink pages" concessions were temporary and had expired. Pan Am contended the "pink pages" constituted the status quo for ongoing negotiations. Presiding Judge McLaughlin, consolidating the trial on merits with the injunction hearing, ruled that the parties had explicitly agreed in their contracts that the "white pages" would define the status quo after the expiration of the temporary concessions. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, ordering Pan Am to construct future flight assignment bid lines in accordance with the "white pages," while denying the retrospective reconstruction of already issued January bid lines.

Railway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionStatus QuoCollective BargainingLabor AgreementContract InterpretationUnion RightsEmployer ObligationsBid LinesConcessionary Agreements
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. Atlantic Container Line, GIE

The Secretary of Labor alleged that Atlantic Container Line (ACL) violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by involuntarily retiring employees at age 62, while ACL contended these retirements were exempt under ADEA § 4(f)(2). The court had previously denied summary judgment, noting factual questions regarding whether a 1974 amendment to ACL's pension plan constituted a subterfuge to evade the ADEA and if ACL relied in good faith on administrative regulations. Upon review of stipulated facts, the court found no evidence of subterfuge in ACL's plan amendment, which aimed to create promotional opportunities and harmonize retirement ages. Furthermore, ACL successfully established a good faith defense under the Portal-to-Portal Act, having relied on official administrative regulations despite conflicting advice from a Department of Labor representative. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ActPension PlanSubterfugeGood Faith DefenseSummary JudgmentMandatory RetirementEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationDepartment of Labor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.

The plaintiff, Thomas Davis, a former "ramp serviceman" for United Air Lines, Inc., sued his employer following his dismissal due to a physical disability (epilepsy). He alleged wrongful dismissal in violation of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asserting a claim as a third-party beneficiary of a federal contract and a violation of a collective bargaining agreement which he claimed incorporated the Act's affirmative action provisions. Chief Judge Weinstein granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court ruled that there is no private right of action under Section 503, as established in a prior appeal concerning the same plaintiff (Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.), and that allowing a third-party beneficiary claim would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim under the collective bargaining agreement was dismissed as he failed to exhaust the mandatory Railway Labor Act procedures, and his "futility" argument was rejected.

Rehabilitation ActWrongful DismissalThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementDisability DiscriminationRailway Labor ActMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionFederal Contract LawAffirmative Action
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 541 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