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

Aldridge v. AC Rochester Products

The claimant, an employee of AC Rochester Products, experienced severe chest pain during employment in December 1987. After multiple medical examinations, her condition was diagnosed in January 1990 as chronic pain syndrome and costochondritis, related to the 1987 incident. She subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim in April 1990. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the claim untimely, determining the injury was an accident and not an occupational disease. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the injuries resulted from an accident, making the claim untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28.

Workers' CompensationTimeliness of ClaimOccupational DiseaseAccidentChronic Pain SyndromeCostochondritisStatute of LimitationsMedical DiagnosisAppealEmployer Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Local 175, United Plant & Production Workers v. Thompson

Local 175, a labor union, initiated a CPLR article 78 petition challenging the Comptroller of the City of New York's 2009-2010 prevailing wage schedules for asphalt workers. Local 175 contended that it was the predominant union for asphalt pavers and that the Comptroller should have based the prevailing wage on its collective bargaining agreement, which offered higher rates than those determined by Local 1018's agreement. The Comptroller cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that under Labor Law § 220 (6), only employers, not labor organizations, have standing to contest such determinations. The court agreed with the Comptroller, rejecting Local 175's arguments and declining to follow a prior ruling that had granted standing to a union in a similar context. The court held that the Legislature intended to limit standing to employers, thus Local 175 lacked the legal capacity to challenge the prevailing wage rate determination. Consequently, the court granted the Comptroller's cross-motion and dismissed the petition.

Prevailing wageLabor Law § 220CPLR article 78Standing doctrineFiscal officerCollective bargaining agreementPublic workAsphalt workersNew York City ComptrollerLabor union

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 15, 1981

Young v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n Production Workers Welfare Fund

The plaintiff, Edwin Young, along with Local 55, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, and six employees of the H. H. Smith Shop, initiated legal action against the Production Workers Welfare Fund and its trustees, Moore and Borod. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent the termination of welfare coverage for approximately 200 H. H. Smith employees. Initially, the court issued a memorandum decision on January 9, 1981, finding that the trustees' decision to terminate benefits was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith, applying fiduciary duties under ERISA. However, the defendants subsequently raised a challenge regarding the court's subject matter jurisdiction. After reviewing the arguments, applicable case law, and ERISA's pre-emption provisions, the court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the action questioned fiduciary conduct and required construction of ERISA provisions, rather than merely clarifying benefits under the plan's terms. Consequently, the court recalled its previous decision, vacated the temporary restraining order, and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

ERISASubject Matter JurisdictionFederal PreemptionEmployee BenefitsWelfare FundFiduciary DutyLabor LawState Court JurisdictionCivil ActionMotion to Dismiss

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 19, 1998

Banegaz v. F.L. Smithe Machine Co.

This case involves a plaintiff worker who sustained severe work site injuries, leading to the complete amputation of one finger and partial amputation of another. The worker sued a product manufacturer, and the manufacturer subsequently filed a third-party complaint against the worker's employer. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the worker's injuries did not constitute a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the decision was unanimously affirmed. The appellate court clarified that "loss of multiple fingers" does not necessarily require a total loss to qualify as a "grave injury" under the statute.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryStatutory InterpretationFinger AmputationWork Site InjuryProduct Manufacturer LiabilityEmployer ImmunityThird-Party ActionsSummary Judgment DenialAppellate Affirmation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Collins v. Promark Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Terry Collins, an employee of the government’s National Park Service, was injured on Ellis Island while using a stump grinder manufactured by defendant Promark Products, Inc. Plaintiff, who had been receiving workers’ compensation benefits, initiated a products liability action against Promark. Promark subsequently impleaded the United States government, alleging negligence in machine maintenance and inadequate instruction. The government moved for summary judgment, contending that New Jersey law should apply under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which would bar the third-party action as workers' compensation would be the sole liability. The court examined an 1833 agreement between New Jersey and New York, consented to by Congress, establishing jurisdictional and territorial limits. The court concluded that New York law applies to the areas on Ellis Island where the tort occurred, granting New York exclusive jurisdiction despite New Jersey's property rights to the underwater land. Consequently, the government’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityFederal Tort Claims ActWorkers' CompensationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentInterstate CompactEllis IslandGovernment Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 20, 1994

Twyford v. Production Associates, Inc.

Production Associates, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which granted McDonald’s Corporation’s motion to dismiss a third-party complaint. The primary action involved Thomas E. Twyford, a McDonald's employee, who sued Production Associates for injuries suffered at a convention. Production Associates then sought contribution from McDonald's. The Supreme Court initially applied Pennsylvania law, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that Illinois law should apply based on an 'interests analysis' approach, as both Production Associates and McDonald's have significant ties to Illinois. Illinois workers' compensation law, unlike Pennsylvania's or New Jersey's, does not preclude third-party contribution claims against an employer.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsContribution ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois LawPennsylvania Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Milan v. Trico Products Corp.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a compensation award for a claimant, denying Trico Products Corp., a self-insured employer, credit for holiday pay against the award, stating the issue was outside its jurisdiction. The Appellate Division affirmed this. The higher court reversed the Appellate Division's order, finding that Trico's claim for credit under Workers’ Compensation Law section 25 (subd 4, par [a]) likely falls within the Board's purview. The matter was remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to remand to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings to resolve the claim.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsHoliday PayEmployer ReimbursementJurisdictionAppellate ReviewRemandSelf-insured EmployerCompensation AwardStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 12, 2002

Claim of Crisci v. IBM Corp.

This case concerns an employer's appeal from two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially granted the claimant's request to compel the employer to provide samples of chemicals to the claimant's physician for allergy testing related to dermatitis. The employer had refused, citing company policy and the commercial availability of the chemicals. After some back-and-forth decisions by Workers' Compensation Law Judges, the Board ultimately required the employer to produce samples of six specific chemicals that the physician could not obtain. The employer also appealed the Board's denial of reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed both Board decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in ordering the production of samples to ascertain the parties' substantial rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 118, and no arbitrariness in denying reconsideration.

Workers’ Compensation BoardAppealsChemical SamplesDermatitisAllergy TestingEmployer ObligationsDiscoveryWorkers’ Compensation LawAbuse of DiscretionReconsideration

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 08, 1988

Claim of Goodman v. Pollio Dairy Products

In 1979, the claimant's husband, Ralph Goodman, died during employment, leading to the claimant being awarded death benefits by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer, Pollio Dairy Products, and its insurance carrier objected, arguing for an offset of Social Security survivors’ benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (1-c). Although initially deemed ineligible, the claimant began receiving Social Security benefits in 1982, prompting the carrier to request a reopening of the case for the offset. The Board ultimately denied the carrier's request, ruling that an offset only applies if benefits are received at the time of the original award, not subsequently. The employer and carrier appealed, but the Board's decision was affirmed, with the court finding its interpretation of the ambiguous statute rational and reasonable.

Death BenefitsSocial Security OffsetWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationSurvivors BenefitsEmployer AppealCarrier AppealWorkers' Compensation BoardStatutory AmbiguityAdministrative Interpretation

References

Showing 1-10 of 22,888 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Aldridge v. AC Rochester Products

Workers' CompensationTimeliness of ClaimOccupational DiseaseAccidentChronic Pain SyndromeCostochondritisStatute of LimitationsMedical DiagnosisAppealEmployer Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Local 175, United Plant & Production Workers v. Thompson

Prevailing wageLabor Law § 220CPLR article 78Standing doctrineFiscal officerCollective bargaining agreementPublic workAsphalt workersNew York City ComptrollerLabor union

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 15, 1981

Young v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n Production Workers Welfare Fund

ERISASubject Matter JurisdictionFederal PreemptionEmployee BenefitsWelfare FundFiduciary DutyLabor LawState Court JurisdictionCivil ActionMotion to Dismiss

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 19, 1998

Banegaz v. F.L. Smithe Machine Co.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Collins v. Promark Products, Inc.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityFederal Tort Claims ActWorkers' CompensationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentInterstate CompactEllis IslandGovernment Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 20, 1994

Twyford v. Production Associates, Inc.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsContribution ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois LawPennsylvania Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Milan v. Trico Products Corp.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsHoliday PayEmployer ReimbursementJurisdictionAppellate ReviewRemandSelf-insured EmployerCompensation AwardStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 12, 2002

Claim of Crisci v. IBM Corp.

Workers’ Compensation BoardAppealsChemical SamplesDermatitisAllergy TestingEmployer ObligationsDiscoveryWorkers’ Compensation LawAbuse of DiscretionReconsideration

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 08, 1988

Claim of Goodman v. Pollio Dairy Products

References

Showing 1-10 of 22,888 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.