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. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2001

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.

Proctor & Gamble Company (P&G), a worldwide distributor of consumer products, sued numerous parties including Quality King Distributors, Inc., Omnisource International, Inc., and Neal Rose, alleging they were involved in mixing, bottling, selling, and distributing counterfeit Head & Shoulders shampoo, in violation of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act. P&G moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for trademark infringement. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, arguing P&G had unclean hands, abandoned its trademark rights, and that Neal Rose lacked individual liability. The court granted P&G's motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants used a counterfeit of P&G's trademark in commerce, which created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court denied the defendants' cross-motions, concluding that the unclean hands defense was inapplicable, P&G had not abandoned its trademark, and there was sufficient evidence for Rose's personal liability.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActCounterfeit GoodsSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DefenseTrademark AbandonmentCorporate Officer LiabilityHead & ShouldersConsumer ConfusionInterstate Commerce
References
40
Case No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2000

Gallagher v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF ELEC. WORKERS

Plaintiff Michael Gallagher sued several entities, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and its President J.J. Barry, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation through IBEW Local Union No. 43's hiring hall. Gallagher claimed the collective bargaining agreement facilitated discrimination against older workers and that Local 43 was an agent of the International defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name the International defendants in his EEOC charge, thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies and that no identity of interest existed between the named and unnamed parties. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the International defendants due to Gallagher's failure to file an administrative complaint against them and the lack of an agency relationship or ratification of discriminatory acts. Furthermore, the court found the claims to be time-barred under both state and federal statutes of limitations.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionCollective Bargaining AgreementEEOCNYSDHRExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Judgment on PleadingsStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rose B.

The Ulster County Commissioner of Social Services appealed an order from the Family Court of Ulster County that dismissed a petition alleging a child, Rose R., was abused and neglected by her father. The appeal stemmed from observations by school staff of numerous injuries on Rose R., which she attributed to beatings. Initially, the Family Court found insufficient evidence. The appellate court, however, reversed the decision regarding neglect, finding that the Commissioner had established by a preponderance of credible evidence that Rose R.'s physical and emotional condition was impaired due to the father's unreasonable infliction of harm and failure to provide minimum care. The matter was remitted to Family Court for a dispositional hearing.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofPreponderance of EvidencePhysical HarmEmotional ImpairmentParental CareChild Protection
References
6
Case No. ADJ1929423
Regular
Dec 23, 2010

DELMYS MARTINEZ vs. ROSE INTERNATIONAL MARKET

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of its prior order in the case of Delmys Martinez vs. Rose International Market. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the arbitrator's report, which provided the reasons for the denial. Crucially, the Board gave "great weight" to the arbitrator's credibility findings. The defendant's verification, initially omitted, was later submitted.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONPetition for Reconsiderationarbitrator's reportGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.credibility findingverification omittedSan Jose District OfficeADJ1929423
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curry v. American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502

Curry, a former Regional Insurance Underwriting Manager for AIG, sued American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502 and American International Life Assurance Co. of New York ("AI Life") under ERISA § 502(a) after her long-term disability benefits were terminated. Curry suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis and diabetes. AI Life initially approved her benefits but later terminated them, alleging she could perform a sedentary occupation, relying on unverified medical responses. The court found AI Life's decision to be arbitrary and capricious due to its reliance on unreliable medical opinions, failure to clarify the record, and disregard for Curry's doctors' reports. Consequently, the court granted Curry's motion for summary judgment, denying the defendants' motion, and ordered the reinstatement of her benefits with prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

ERISALong-term disabilityBenefits terminationArbitrary and capricious standardConflict of interestMedical opinionUnreliable evidenceSummary judgmentOrthopaedic conditionsDiabetes
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rose v. A. Servidone, Inc.

Robert Rose, an employee of Orange and Rockland Utilities, was injured on August 21, 1995, while stepping off a truck onto uneven ground at a construction site. He and his wife, Lenora Rose, sued A. Servidone, Inc., the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence. Servidone subsequently initiated a third-party action against Orange and Rockland Utilities. The Supreme Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of Servidone, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Servidone lacked control over Rose's specific activity for the Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims. It also found that stepping from a truck onto uneven ground did not constitute an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), and no pertinent Industrial Code regulations were violated for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Construction Site SafetySafe Place to Work DoctrineGeneral Contractor LiabilityEmployer ControlElevation-Related Hazards
References
4
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
8
Case No. No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2000

Gallagher v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Michael Gallagher, a member of IBEW Local 43, sued the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), its President J.J. Barry, IBEW Local 43, and several electrical contractors, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation. He claimed violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Executive Law § 296. The International defendants (IBEW and J.J. Barry) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name them in his administrative charges with the EEOC and NYSDHR, and that the claims were time-barred. The court granted the motion, finding that the "identity of interest" exception did not apply, thereby barring the ADEA claim against the International defendants. Additionally, the court ruled that Gallagher's state law claims were also time-barred due to failure to file within the statutory limits against the International defendants.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionsCollective BargainingHiring HallEEOCNYSDHRStatute of LimitationsJudgment on the PleadingsIdentity of Interest
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rose v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Joseph Rose (plaintiff) filed a class action against Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company and Northwestern Mutual Investment Securities LLC (defendants), alleging minimum wage and overtime violations under New York Labor Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Rose was an independent contractor and thus exempt from state labor laws, and that there was no relationship with NMIS. The court found that Rose was an independent contractor, not an employee, based on factors such as his contract designation, lack of fixed work schedule or supervision by Northwestern Mutual, and absence of fringe benefits or hourly wages. The court also determined there was no relationship between Rose and NMIS. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and all of plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Independent Contractor StatusEmployment LawSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawMinimum WageOvertime ViolationsInsurance AgentsClass ActionControl TestFringe Benefits
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 1,300 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