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

Matter of General Elec. Co. (Elec., Etc., Workers)

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lopez v. Mamta Development Corp.

A claimant, an apartment building superintendent, sought workers' compensation benefits after being injured in a physical altercation with a tenant. The incident occurred on March 17, 1981, following the claimant's refusal to perform duties due to strike activity. The Workers' Compensation Board denied benefits, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The court affirmed this decision, reasoning that the claimant's participation in the strike constituted a substantial, intentional deviation and effective withdrawal from his employment. The court held that injuries sustained during activities not incidental to or benefiting the employer, and representing a significant departure from the scope of employment, are not compensable.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryStrike ParticipationScope of EmploymentDeviation from DutiesTenant DisputeAssaultNew York LawDenial of BenefitsBuilding Superintendent
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. 09 Civ. 4390 (PKC)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Aiello v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Aiello, a civilian contractor, sued Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in a latrine at Camp Shield, a forward operating base in Iraq. Aiello alleged negligent construction, renovation, repair, and/or maintenance of the facility. Defendant Kellogg moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses including the political question doctrine and federal preemption under the combatant activities exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The District Court found the political question doctrine inapplicable but granted summary judgment for Kellogg, holding that tort claims against government contractors integrated into military combatant activities in a war zone are preempted. The court reasoned that the maintenance of essential life-support facilities at an active forward operating base constituted combatant activity, and imposing state tort liability would significantly conflict with unique federal interests.

Military Contractor LiabilityFederal PreemptionCombatant Activities ExceptionFederal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)Political Question DoctrineSummary JudgmentNegligenceIraq War OperationsCamp ShieldLogistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)
References
49
Case No. ADJ8229800
Regular
Oct 08, 2013

JULIO LOPEZ vs. TJS CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Bodner Chiropractic's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the dismissal of its lien claim for failure to pay the required activation fee. Bodner's assertion that it couldn't locate the lien or pay the fee prior to the conference was insufficient to excuse the non-payment. While the Board found no clear proof the petition was untimely, the core reason for denial remains the lien claimant's failure to meet the activation fee payment deadline. The decision reiterates that lien activation fees must be paid before a lien conference commences.

Lien activation feeElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Lien claimantWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Dismissing Lien ClaimLabor Code section 4903.06Figueroa v. B.C. Doering Co.Compromise and Release
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. New York City Transit Authority

James Rogers, a member of the Socialist Workers' Party, was fined $50 by the New York City Transit Authority for selling newspapers on a subway station platform, violating a rule against unauthorized commercial activity. Rogers challenged this, asserting free speech violations and arguing his activities were permitted. The trial court sided with Rogers, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling the subway is not a public forum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that subway stations are limited public forums subject to reasonable, content-neutral regulations. The Court upheld the Transit Authority's ban on sales activity, recognizing its legitimate interest in managing the transportation system for safety and efficiency.

First AmendmentFree SpeechPublic Forum DoctrineCommercial ActivitySubway StationPolitical CampaignExpressive ConductNew York City Transit AuthorityRegulationsAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. 2 Misc 3d 627
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2004

Munoz v. DJZ Realty, LLC

Larry Munoz, an injured plaintiff, appealed a Supreme Court order that had granted summary judgment to defendant DJZ Realty, LLC, dismissing his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. Munoz fell from a ladder while installing a poster on a billboard, arguing this activity constituted 'altering' a structure, a protected activity under the Labor Law. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment on that claim. The court reasoned that the defendant failed to prove, as a matter of law, that applying a new advertisement to a billboard was mere routine maintenance rather than an alteration or repair. A dissenting opinion contended that such an activity was routine maintenance and not a 'significant physical change' to the structure, and therefore should not be covered by Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentBillboard InstallationLabor Law § 240(1)Statutory InterpretationAlteration of StructureRoutine MaintenanceSummary Judgment AppealElevation-Related HazardAppellate Division
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 5,655 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