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

Amo v. Little Rapids Corp.

Plaintiff, Amo, was injured after falling 16 inches from a boulder while jackhammering during a construction excavation project. He sued Little Rapids Corporation (LRC), the property owner, and Laframboise Group, Ltd., the general contractor, under Labor Law § 240 (1). After a second jury trial, it was determined that the height differential was 15 inches and plaintiff fell a total of 16 inches. The Supreme Court ruled this constituted an elevation-related risk under the Labor Law. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the specific circumstances of the fall from an elevated, wet work surface while jackhammering constituted a "special hazard" under Labor Law § 240 (1), especially given the uncontroverted absence of safety devices.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related RiskFall From HeightWorkplace SafetyScaffolding LawIndemnification ClaimsJury FindingsAppellate AffirmationAbsence of Safety Devices
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interborough Rapid Transit Co. v. Lavin

The Interborough Rapid Transit Company sought an injunction against former employees who instigated a strike and were encouraging current employees to leave the company's established "Brotherhood" union to join the "Amalgamated Association." The case examined the legality of such inducement and the broad injunction initially granted pendente lite. The court found that while employees have the right to leave employment and join other unions, and outsiders can persuade them using lawful means, the injunction's broad scope was not justified. It reversed the prior orders and remitted the motion, questioning but not definitively ruling on whether urging employees to conceal their new union affiliations from their employer constitutes an unlawful means. The decision reaffirms that unlawful actions like trespass, force, or deceit can always be enjoined.

Labor DisputeInjunctionEmployment LawUnion OrganizingFreedom of ContractEmployer-Employee RelationsCompany UnionTrade Union SolicitationConcealment of Union MembershipWrongful Interference
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1980

Rapid Armored Truck Corp. v. Local 807 Armored Car Division Pension Fund

Petitioner Rapid Armored Truck Corp. and Local Union No. 820 (later Local 807) entered into a collective bargaining agreement requiring pension fund contributions with a broad arbitration clause. After the agreement's extensions, petitioner refused to sign a successor agreement, contending its obligation to the pension fund had terminated. The trustees of the pension fund sought arbitration regarding these contributions. Petitioner commenced a proceeding to stay arbitration, arguing no valid arbitration agreement existed and challenged an amendment naming a single arbitrator. Local 807 cross-applied to compel arbitration. Special Term held that the agreement was extended and the dispute was arbitrable, but ordered a three-member arbitration board. The Appellate Court affirmed, emphasizing the strong presumption favoring arbitrability in private labor disputes and that issues of contract interpretation and obligations arguably created by an expired agreement fall within the arbitration clause.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration DisputePension Fund ContributionsContract TerminationArbitrabilityUnion SuccessionLabor LawEmployer ObligationsGrievance ProcedureAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ7390255
Regular
Jan 03, 2023

DARNELLA SCOTT STREET vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision allowing a lien claim for an H-Wave machine. The applicant found more relief with the H-Wave than a TENS unit. The Agreed Medical Examiner opined that while not convinced the H-Wave was superior to other inferential stimulation units, it was superior to a TENS unit. The WCAB found the lien claimant met its burden of proof regarding the medical necessity of the H-Wave.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictAthens AdministratorsPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgesubstantial evidenceElectronic Waveform LabsH-WaveTENS unitinferential stimulation unit
References
5
Case No. ADJ9376633, ADJ9378451
Regular
Oct 29, 2018

MARIA GONZALEZ vs. CRST VAN EX/CEDAR RAPIDS, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Maria Gonzalez and defendants CRST Van Ex/Cedar Rapids and New Hampshire Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision from August 13, 2018. The Board rescinded that decision and returned the matter to the workers' compensation administrative law judge for further proceedings and a new decision. This order is procedural and does not address the merits of the case.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportgrant reconsiderationrescind decisionfurther proceedingsDecision After Reconsiderationtrial leveladministrative law judgeADJ9376633
References
0
Case No. ADJ9770624; ADJ10440533
Regular
Jun 09, 2025

SUMUDU JAYASURIYA vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant, Sumudu Jayasuriya, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) from March 7, 2025, concerning a low back injury sustained in 2014 while employed by San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. The WCJ had found 16% permanent disability and entitlement to further medical treatment. The applicant contended that Dr. Holmes's medical reporting was not substantial evidence, the WCJ failed to consider his post-trial briefs, and defendant's attorney engaged in misconduct. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Holmes's report as substantial medical evidence, affirming the WCJ's decision regarding post-trial briefs, and finding no basis for the alleged attorney misconduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTrain Control Electronic TechnicianLow Back InjuryTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent Disability IndemnityStipulations with Request for AwardNew and Further DisabilityQualified Medical Examiner
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1977

Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 922

This case involves an appeal from a judgment that enjoined unions representing employees of the Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority (SIRTOA) from striking. SIRTOA, a public benefit corporation operating a commuter rail line in New York, argued that its employees, as public employees, are prohibited from striking under the New York State Taylor Law. The defendant unions contended they were governed by the federal Railway Labor Act, which permits strikes. The court affirmed the injunction, determining that SIRTOA's minimal connection to interstate commerce, primarily a single daily freight run, was outweighed by the State's compelling interest in preventing public employee strikes and ensuring essential commuter rail service for Staten Island residents.

Strike InjunctionPublic EmployeesRailway Labor ActTaylor LawInterstate CommerceState SovereigntyCommuter RailCollective BargainingNew York State LawFederal Preemption
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrucci v. Hogan

This case concerns former employees of the Interborough Rapid Transit System who became City of New York employees and subsequently resigned from the Transport Workers Union. Following their resignation, the union and its officers picketed the plaintiffs' homes and distributed leaflets. The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to stop these actions. The defendants argued that this was a labor dispute under section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, which would prevent an injunction without specific procedural compliance. The court determined that section 876-a does not apply to employees of the State or its political subdivisions, thus public employees are exempt. Furthermore, the court found the ultimate object of the picketing, to coerce plaintiffs into union membership and thereby establish a 'closed shop' in city service, to be unlawful as it contravenes the New York State Constitution and Civil Service Law, which mandate appointments based on merit and fitness. The picketing of private residences with an unlawful purpose was also deemed malicious. Consequently, the court granted the temporary injunction against the defendants.

Labor UnionCivil ServicePicketingTemporary InjunctionAnti-Injunction ActPublic EmployeesClosed ShopFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of AssociationConstitutional Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otten v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Theodore F. Otten, a former employee of Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Company, was discharged for refusing to join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a requirement under a union shop agreement sanctioned by the Railway Labor Act. Otten's refusal was rooted in religious conscience, not hostility towards unions. The Court of Appeals had previously affirmed a denial of his motion for a temporary injunction and a three-judge court, signaling the likely outcome. Despite the equitable appeal of Otten's case and his financial loss, the district court felt bound by the appellate court's prior ruling on the merits. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss outright, reasoning that a federal question regarding the Railway Labor Act's construction might still exist. However, the court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim for relief, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without costs.

Union Shop AgreementRailway Labor ActReligious ObjectionEmployment DischargeConscientious RefusalFederal JurisdictionAppellate ReviewLabor LawTrial Court RulingConstitutional Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2012

Thompson v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The defendants, Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, MTA Staten Island Railway, and Tyesha Witt, appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury action as time-barred. The plaintiff's decedent was injured in a railway accident in February 2008 and filed a complaint in March 2009. The defendants argued the action was time-barred under Public Authorities Law § 1276, which mandates a one-year-and-30-day statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Sarah Thompson, argued the statute of limitations was tolled under CPLR 208 due to the decedent's alleged

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTime-barredCPLR 208Insanity TollPublic Authorities LawRailway AccidentAppellate ReviewLegal Procedure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 56 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