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. 6:10-CV-346
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Wave Comm GR LLC

Plaintiff Brett Johnson, on behalf of himself and other installers, sued Wave Comm GR LLC and its owners for alleged Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) violations concerning unpaid overtime. The defendants countered with an unjust enrichment claim. The court partially granted and partially denied both parties' summary judgment motions. It ruled that FLSA claims were subject to a statute of limitations, and Wave Comm could claim a retail or service establishment exemption for some periods under its Plan A compensation system, but not for periods where it failed to track hours. The court found Plan B's weighted halftime formula largely compliant but identified factual disputes regarding unreported work hours. Owners Robert Guillerault and Richard Ruzzo were deemed individually liable as FLSA employers, and the defendants' unjust enrichment counterclaim was dismissed.

FLSANYLLOvertime CompensationRetail ExemptionService Establishment ExemptionCommission PayPiece RateWeighted HalftimeUnreported HoursIndividual Liability
References
45
Case No. ADJ1796224
Regular
Sep 09, 2008

JOSE BONILLA vs. PRO-COMM PLASTERING

Reconsideration granted due to insufficient evidence regarding applicant's employment at the time of injury. Case returned to trial level for further development of the record.

ReconsiderationIndustrial injuryEmployment disputeWall DesignPro-Comm PlasteringWCJEvidence developmentDeposition transcriptsSubstantial justiceLabor Code § 5906
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07367 [211 AD3d 1582]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2022

Bregaudit v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Ctr.

Plaintiff Edison Bregaudit sought damages after slipping on ice at a facility owned by Loretto Health and Rehabilitation Center, which contracted Pro Scapes, Inc. for snow removal. Pro Scapes initially moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, a motion initially granted by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed parts of the lower court's decision. The Appellate Division found a question of fact existed regarding whether Pro Scapes negligently created or exacerbated the dangerous icy condition by using inadequate deicer, which could lead to refreezing. Consequently, the court denied parts of Pro Scapes' motion for summary judgment and reinstated the amended complaint and cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Pro Scapes.

Snow and IceSlip and FallPremises LiabilitySnow Removal ContractSummary JudgmentDuty of CareTort LiabilityExacerbated ConditionNegligenceRefreezing
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n v. International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades

This case involves an ongoing jurisdictional dispute between the Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Association (Plasterers Local 530) and the International Brotherhood of Painters and Aided Trades (Painters Local 1486) concerning 'skimcoating' work at the Nordstrom’s Project. The Plasterers initiated the action after the contractor, Island Taping, Inc., hired the Painters' Local 1486 instead of Local 530. After local and national arbitration attempts failed to resolve the arbitrability issue, the Plasterers requested the District Court to either compel arbitration or assume jurisdiction to decide the dispute and sought a preliminary injunction. The Court ruled that the question of arbitrability was not clearly delegated to the arbitrator and must be decided independently by the Court. A hearing has been ordered to determine if Local 1486 is affiliated with the New York Plan, which would establish arbitrability. The Court also denied the request for a preliminary injunction due to a lack of demonstrated irreparable harm.

jurisdictional disputelabor unionsarbitrationNational Labor Relations Actpreliminary injunctionarbitrabilityunion affiliationskimcoating workconstruction industryfederal court jurisdiction
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2012

Williams v. Orange & Sullivan Excavating Corp.

This case concerns an appeal challenging the approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Supreme Court, Orange County, initially granted the petition for approval, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The ruling reiterates that employees must obtain either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of settlement to maintain workers' compensation benefits. However, a nunc pro tunc order can still be granted after three months if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the employee's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced. The appellate court concluded that the Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in granting the nunc pro tunc approval, aligning with established legal precedent regarding such petitions.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Personal Injury SettlementNunc Pro TuncJudicial ApprovalWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate AffirmationDelay ExcuseReasonable SettlementCarrier PrejudiceJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp.

Plaintiff was injured at a construction site when, while working, he was struck in the back by an uninstalled door frame. He commenced an action against Wood-Pro, the company hired to install the door frames, and Summerville, the manufacturer of the door frame. The jury found no negligence on the part of Wood-Pro. The court also properly granted Summerville’s motion to dismiss the action as against it, as there was no evidence of negligence or violation of duty. Plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) against both defendants were also found unavailing, as neither had authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work, and they were not owners or general contractors.

Construction InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityLabor LawAppellate ReviewJury VerdictComparative FaultMotion to DismissStatutory DutyContractual Duty
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n Local 202 v. Board of Trustees of the Plastering Industry Welfare & Pension Trust Funds

This case addresses a dispute between two union locals, Local 202 and Local 60, both affiliated with the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association. Following Local 60's termination of a reciprocal agreement that facilitated the exchange of benefit contributions for members working outside their home jurisdiction, Local 202 sued, alleging violations of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and ERISA. The court found that Local 60's refusal to transfer contributions created a 'structural defect' in its benefit plans, which prevented Local 202 members from receiving benefits earned by their labor within Local 60's jurisdiction. Citing the 'sole and exclusive benefit' provision of the LMRA, the court concluded that reciprocity was legally required to prevent unjust enrichment. Consequently, the court granted Local 202's motion for summary judgment and denied Local 60's.

Union DisputeBenefit FundsEmployee BenefitsReciprocal AgreementLabor Management Relations ActERISAStructural DefectSummary JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentInter-union Agreement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PRO-TECH WELDING AND FABRICATION INC. v. Lajuett

Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc. sued its former employees and related corporations for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract concerning its 'Sno Pusher' snow removal device and the '755 patent. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no infringement and patent invalidity, while Pro-Tech cross-moved to dismiss counterclaims. The core dispute revolved around whether defendants' 'boxed gusset' design infringed on the '755 patent's 'vertical reinforcing channels.' The court found no literal infringement, distinguishing 'channels' from 'boxed gussets' based on common meaning and prosecution history. It also rejected infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel, as the patentee had previously narrowed the claim scope during prosecution to distinguish prior art. As a result, the patent infringement claims (Counts I and II) were dismissed with prejudice, while state law claims were dismissed without prejudice for refiling in state court.

Patent InfringementTrade SecretsBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDoctrine of EquivalentsProsecution History EstoppelSnow Removal EquipmentSnow PusherBox PlowClaim Construction
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. ADJ19479057
Regular
Aug 26, 2025

GERALD TORRES vs. PRO DEO FOUNDATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant, Pro Deo Foundation and State Compensation Insurance Fund, petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's decision, which found Gerald Torres to be an employee of Pro Deo Foundation. Defendant contended Torres was a volunteer or independent contractor and should be judicially estopped from claiming workers' compensation due to a prior settlement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of employment, emphasizing the WCJ's credibility determinations and concluding that the defendant failed to satisfy the 'ABC' test for independent contractor status. The Board timely acted on and subsequently denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationPro Deo FoundationState Compensation Insurance FundGerald TorresADJ19479057Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersEmployee StatusVolunteerIndependent Contractor
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 507 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