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

Laborers Local 91, Laborers International Union v. Building Industry Employers Ass'n

Plaintiff Laborers Local 91 sought to compel arbitration against defendants Building Industry Employers Association and Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc. concerning a work assignment dispute involving Iron Workers Local 9. Laborers Local 91 alleged a violation of its collective bargaining agreement when Higgins assigned work to Iron Workers Local 9. After resolution attempts via the Impartial Jurisdictional Dispute Board (IJDB) and Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service failed, Laborers Local 91 initiated this action under the Labor Management Relations Act and the United States Arbitration Act. The court had previously ordered Iron Workers Local 9 to be joined as a defendant. Currently, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the court denies without prejudice due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the exclusivity of the IJDB forum, the Plan's intended preclusion of other remedies, and whether Iron Workers Local 9's agreement bars arbitration.

jurisdictional disputecollective bargaining agreementarbitrationsummary judgmentlabor management relations actunion disputework assignmenttripartite arbitrationImpartial Jurisdictional Dispute Boardfederal labor law
References
13
Case No. No. 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2022

Dora Howell v. City of New York

Dora Howell sued the City of New York and two police officers for negligence after her ex-boyfriend, who had multiple orders of protection against him, brutally attacked and pushed her from a third-floor window. Howell alleged that the defendants failed to provide her with sufficient protection, despite repeated calls about her ex-boyfriend violating the orders. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Howell failed to prove the defendants owed her a 'special duty' of care. The majority found no triable issue of fact regarding Howell's justifiable reliance on the police's affirmative undertaking, stating that the mere existence of an order of protection does not, by itself, establish such reliance. Dissenting judges argued that the Domestic Violence Intervention Act (DVIA) established a statutory special duty requiring mandatory arrests for order of protection violations, and that Howell had raised triable issues of fact concerning police control over a dangerous situation and justifiable reliance.

Negligence actionSpecial duty rulePolice protection liabilityOrder of protection violationDomestic violenceGovernmental immunityJustifiable relianceSummary judgmentAppellate reviewMandatory arrest laws
References
69
Case No. ADJ4459609 (RDG 0084433) ADJ165897 (RDG 0084432) ADJ350688 (VNO 0548588)
Regular
Aug 13, 2009

BILLY EPPS vs. TRIANGLE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant denied vocational rehabilitation benefits by the WCJ. The applicant argued the Rehabilitation Unit's (RU) delay constituted nonfeasance and deliberate indifference, entitling him to benefits despite the repeal of the relevant statute. The Board denied reconsideration, finding no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of RU misconduct. The Board also highlighted the applicant's own significant delays in pursuing his claim, which prejudiced his ability to secure benefits before the law changed.

Vocational Rehabilitation BenefitsRehabilitation Unit (RU)NonfeasanceDeliberate IndifferenceWanton DisregardDue ProcessReckless ActionsQualified Injured WorkerLabor Code Section 139.5Petition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ878224
Regular
Jan 28, 2009

HAROLD THOMPSON vs. CANOGA PARK BOWL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Supplemental Findings and Award that determined 91.5% permanent disability after apportionment. The applicant argued that agreed medical evaluators and treating physicians opined total permanent disability, and disputed payment of a medical report. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to amend a finding regarding Labor Code section 5811 costs, deferring that issue. The Board affirmed the original award of 91.5% permanent disability.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSupplemental Findings and Awardnew and further disabilitypermanent disability after apportionmentagreed medical evaluatorsLe Beeur witnesstotal permanent disabilityLabor Code section 5811 costsdefer issuegrant reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ769963 (VNO 0196669)
Regular
Nov 25, 2013

GEORGE GIO vs. RAY WANG also known as CHING WANG, RAYMOND LLORENS also known as THOMAS STRONG, doing business as RAYMCO BUILDERS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking enforcement of a Rehabilitation Unit (RU) determination for vocational rehabilitation benefits and retroactive VRMA, issued on December 31, 2008. The WCJ initially found the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to enforce the RU determination, which was issued after the critical January 1, 2009, deadline for WCAB jurisdiction over such matters. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision because it was improperly made at a Mandatory Settlement Conference over the applicant's objection. The case is remanded for a new hearing before a different WCJ to address the substantive issue of enforceability.

Rehabilitation UnitVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceMandatory Settlement ConferenceEnforceabilityJurisdictionRescinded DecisionReassignmentLabor CodeAppeals Board RulesDeclaration of Readiness
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1990

Neumark v. Neumark

In a matrimonial action, the defendant former husband appealed and the plaintiff wife cross-appealed from portions of an order and judgment concerning the division of marital assets and maintenance. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially directed the husband to convey his interest in the marital residence, pay accrued arrears of $101,535.91, and $61,369.93 in pension benefits, and reduced maintenance to $800 a month. The Appellate Court modified the order, deleting the pension benefit award and remitting for a determination of present value. Maintenance was further reduced to $500 a month, and accrued arrears for the plaintiff were adjusted to $99,255.91. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Matrimonial ActionDivorceMaintenance ArrearsPension BenefitsMarital ResidenceEquitable DistributionDownward ModificationChange of CircumstancesAppellate ReviewCross-Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2011

Burnett v. City of New York

Plaintiff Fitzroy Burnett, a track worker, was injured while removing temporary wood shoring from subway tracks, slipping in a water-filled trough. The trial court found the rail bed an unsafe walkway under Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d) and defendant liable under Labor Law § 241 (6). The jury's initial damages award for pain and suffering was increased by the trial court, and an additional $91,000 was added for potential medical liens. The appellate court affirmed the increased award but vacated the $91,000 additur, determining the defendant had waived its right to enforce medical liens. The court also addressed clarification motions and dismissed an appeal regarding reargument of liability.

Workplace injurySubway track accidentIndustrial Code violationLabor Law § 241 (6)Damages awardPain and sufferingMedical liensAdditurShoulder fractureAnkle fracture
References
4
Case No. 8576/91
Regular Panel Decision

Nonnon v. City of New York

This consolidated case addresses personal injury and wrongful death claims due to alleged hazardous substance exposure from the Pelham Bay landfill in the Bronx. Defendants sought summary judgment, challenging the causal link between landfill exposure and increased cancer incidence. The court reviewed extensive epidemiological and toxicological expert evidence regarding acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) and Hodgkin's disease. It found sufficient causation evidence for ALL, affirming the denial of summary judgment for those plaintiffs. However, claims for Hodgkin's disease were dismissed due to insufficient specific epidemiological data.

Toxic TortEnvironmental ContaminationLandfill LitigationAcute Lymphoid Leukemia (ALL)Hodgkin's DiseaseCausationEpidemiologyToxicologySummary JudgmentScientific Evidence
References
14
Case No. 10654/91
Regular Panel Decision

Zangiacomi v. Hood

Plaintiff, an employee of Peter Lyden, fell from a roof during renovations at a house owned by defendant Coke Anne Saunders in Westport, Connecticut, sustaining injuries. Plaintiff sued Saunders and John Hood, alleging violations of New York Labor Law §240 due to lack of safety equipment. The IAS Court granted Saunders' motion for summary judgment, exempting her as a one- or two-family homeowner who did not direct or control the work. The appellate court reversed, ruling that Saunders was not entitled to the homeowner exemption because the house was being renovated for commercial resale, making the applicability of Labor Law §240's strict liability rule independent of her control over the work. The court further found that an issue of fact existed regarding Saunders' control under Connecticut common law negligence, thereby precluding summary judgment dismissal under either New York or Connecticut law. Plaintiff's motion for a trial preference was granted due to severe and permanent injuries and financial hardship.

Labor Law §240Homeowner ExemptionCommercial UseSummary JudgmentReversalConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryChoice of LawCollateral EstoppelTrial Preference
References
15
Case No. 91-1324
Regular Panel Decision

Dawes v. Leonardo

Ian Dawes, a New York State prison inmate, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Superintendent Arthur Leonardo and Hearing Officer John Patterson. Dawes alleged that a policy prohibited inmates in the Special Housing Unit from being present during the testimony of favorable witnesses at disciplinary hearings and that Patterson failed to provide written explanations for this. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing inmates have no constitutional right to be present during witness testimony. The court, citing Second Circuit precedent in Francis v. Coughlin, held that prison inmates do not possess a constitutional right to be present during such testimony. While New York State regulations might provide such a right, the court concluded that a procedural safeguard not required by the U.S. Constitution does not create a liberty interest of constitutional dimensions under the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Civil RightsInmate RightsDue ProcessDisciplinary HearingsSummary JudgmentLaw of the CasePrisoner LitigationLiberty InterestConstitutional LawNew York Regulations
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 58 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