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

Fraternal Order of Police, National Labor Council, USPS No. 2 v. United States Postal Service

The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and 13 individual Postal Police Officers sued the United States Postal Service and its employees, alleging violations of federal and state law, as well as their employment contract. Plaintiffs challenged restrictions on their law enforcement authority, citing 40 U.S.C. § 318, and also claimed illegal locker searches under the Fourth Amendment and New York law. The defendants sought dismissal, primarily arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the claims. It ruled that Section 318 does not confer a private right of action and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the grievance procedures outlined in their collective bargaining agreement and the Postal Reorganization Act for their search and contract-related claims.

Labor LawPostal ServicePolice PowersFourth AmendmentLocker SearchCollective Bargaining AgreementExhaustion of RemediesPrivate Right of ActionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between United States Postal Service & American Postal Workers Union

Dorothy Woods sought to modify an arbitration award after her termination from the United States Postal Service, which reinstated her without back pay. She filed an action against the American Postal Workers Union and the Postal Service, requesting back pay, restoration of vacation time, and retroactive sick leave. Chief Judge Motley denied Woods' motion and granted the Postal Service's motion to dismiss. The court determined Woods lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. section 11, as she was not a "party" to the arbitration between the Union and the Postal Service. Additionally, her petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, as her grounds for modification were not recognized by the statute.

Arbitration Award ModificationLabor LawSubject Matter JurisdictionStanding to SueCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionUnion RepresentationGrievance ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2009

National Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. United States Postal Service

Two labor unions, NALC and APWU, representing postal employees, sued the United States Postal Service (USPS) and its Office of Inspector General (OIG). The unions alleged that the defendants implemented an unlawful policy of obtaining employees' personal medical information from healthcare providers without their knowledge or consent, violating HIPAA, the Privacy Act, and constitutional privacy rights, as well as the Fourth Amendment. The USPS moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of associational standing and failure to state a claim. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss in both respects, ruling that the unions had associational standing as the claims raised purely legal questions, and that the "ultra vires" claim was plausible.

Labor UnionsPostal EmployeesMedical PrivacyHIPAAPrivacy ActFourth AmendmentAssociational StandingMotion to DismissGovernment OversightInformation Disclosure
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lettis v. United States Postal Service

Plaintiff John M. Lettis, a former letter carrier, brought a hybrid action against the United States Post Office and Branch 6000, alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement and duty of fair representation after his employment termination. He moved to drop certain defendants, add others, and amend his complaint to include claims from a suspension arbitration. The Court granted the motion to drop original defendants and to add the United States Postal Service and the National Association of Letter Carriers as defendants. It also conditionally granted the addition of several individual defendants for supplemental state claims, pending proper pleading and applicable statutes of limitations. Furthermore, the Court conditionally allowed the amendment of claims arising from a suspension arbitration, subject to a six-month statute of limitations.

Employment LawLabor LawUnion RepresentationBreach of ContractFederal Civil ProcedureStatute of LimitationsHybrid ActionCollective Bargaining AgreementUnited States Postal ServiceNational Association of Letter Carriers
References
0
Case No. 88 Civ. 3723 (KC)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 1990

Belton v. US POSTAL SERV.(NE REGION AGENCY)

Plaintiff Robert Belton, a former postal worker, initiated this action alleging racial discrimination and discrimination based on physical handicap by the United States Postal Service (USPS) following his termination. The case involved a prior settlement agreement which Belton claimed the USPS did not uphold, leading to an appeal to the EEOC which was also denied. The central legal question for the court was whether the 30-day time limit for filing a federal employee discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) is a jurisdictional requirement, preventing equitable tolling. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the court concluded that this period is indeed jurisdictional. Consequently, as Belton failed to name the correct defendant (the Postmaster General) and provide timely notice within this non-waivable period, the court ruled it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationPhysical HandicapEmployment DiscriminationFederal EmployeeTitle VIIRehabilitation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionEquitable TollingSovereign Immunity
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1985

Landi v. Carrier Corp.

The claimant, a 61-year-old brake press operator, suffered an acute back strain and aggravation of degenerative disc disease, leading to total disability for a period in 1982. He subsequently retired in February 1983, asserting his inability to perform even a light-duty inspector's job offered by his employer due to his ongoing partial disability. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant's retirement was directly attributable to his continuing permanent partial disability, a finding supported by his doctor's reports and his own testimony. The employer and its carrier appealed the Board's decision, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Back StrainDegenerative Disc DiseaseTotal DisabilityPartial DisabilityVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceOrthopedist
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nebenhaus v. Lydmark Corp.

The claimant, a butcher and president of Lydmark Corporation, allegedly suffered heart attacks and failed to file a timely notice of claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board excused this delay, citing prompt medical attention and no prejudice to the carrier. However, the employer and its carrier appealed. The court found that the carrier did not receive notice within the statutory 30 days, and the Board's finding of no prejudice was unsupported. The claimant had previously indicated no intent to file a compensation claim on disability forms, and the employer corporation disbanded, hindering the carrier's investigation. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision, with costs to the carrier against the Workers’ Compensation Board, and remitted the matter for further proceedings on the issue of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation LawNotice of ClaimTimely NoticePrejudice to CarrierHeart AttackEmployer's Report of InjuryEmployee's Claim FormDisability BenefitsCorporate OfficerAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meehan v. United States Postal Service

Plaintiff James Meehan, Administrator of Michael J. Meehan's estate, initiated an action against the U.S. Postal Service, U.S.A., and U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the Federal Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLI). He alleged that his son, Michael J. Meehan, was wrongfully denied free life insurance, despite having signed a waiver during his employment. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust the mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. The court concurred with the defendants, ruling that the claim constituted a breach of the collective bargaining agreement, thereby necessitating the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to judicial review. Additionally, the court noted that the action would have been time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations and that Meehan had properly waived his life insurance.

Federal Group Life Insurance ActSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProceduresArbitrationExhaustion of Administrative RemediesStatute of LimitationsLife Insurance Waiver
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Miller v. Arrow Carriers Corp.

This case involves a claimant who received workers' compensation benefits following a 1981 job-related motor vehicle accident. The employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier asserted a lien against the claimant's $100,000 third-party settlement and initially opposed its approval. The Supreme Court approved the settlement, distributing $30,000 to the carrier for its lien and $35,633 to the claimant. Subsequently, through a stipulation, the parties agreed to modify the order, with the carrier compromising its lien for $30,000 while explicitly reserving its right to offset future compensation obligations using the claimant's net recovery. Despite a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge finding the offset right preserved, the Workers’ Compensation Board later reversed this determination, prompting the current appeal. The court ultimately reversed the Board's decision, affirming the carrier's right to offset future compensation benefits, emphasizing that the carrier's explicit reservation during the settlement stipulation was valid under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (4) and aligned with the legislative intent to prevent double recoveries.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementLienOffset RightsStatutory InterpretationJudicial ApprovalWorkers’ Compensation Law § 29Double RecoveryStipulation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2000

Claim of Martin v. Levest Electric Corp.

The claimant, having suffered work-related injuries, pursued both workers' compensation benefits and a third-party personal injury action, which was subsequently settled. A contention arose concerning the workers' compensation carrier's entitlement to offset future benefits against the net settlement proceeds, as outlined in Workers' Compensation Law § 29. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the carrier had correctly preserved its right to this offset. On appeal, the claimant argued that the carrier had consented to the settlement, thereby waiving its offset right, and that a court possessed the authority to waive such a right. The appellate court upheld the Board's finding, concluding that there was no substantial evidence of carrier consent to the settlement, and reaffirmed that a court cannot override a carrier's explicit reservation of its offset rights.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementOffset RightsCarrier ConsentFuture BenefitsJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionBoard RulingReservation of Rights
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,836 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