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. CA 12-01143
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

PROFESSIONAL, CLERICAL, TECHNICAL, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, concerning an arbitration award. The petitioner, Professional, Clerical, Technical, Employees Association, sought to vacate an arbitration award, which the Supreme Court, Erie County, initially granted. The respondent, Board of Education for Buffalo City School District, appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying the petition to vacate and granting the cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award. The court concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding employee qualifications for new positions was neither irrational nor an exceeding of authority. The arbitrator's decision upheld the supervisor's discretion in assessing qualifications beyond minimum requirements for Assistant Management Analyst positions.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewLabor LawAppellate DivisionSupervisor DiscretionEmployee QualificationsContract InterpretationNew York LawSchool District
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. ADJ11556777
Regular
Oct 02, 2020

LISANDRO LEMUS vs. SGL TECHNIC, LLC, SOMPO AMERICA

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Lisandro Lemus's Petition for Removal. The WCAB found the petition to be moot and incorporated the reasoning from the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without prejudice.

Petition for RemovalWCJ reportmootWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalLisandro LemusSGL TechnicSompo AmericaADJ11556777Los Angeles District Office
References
0
Case No. 2012 NY Slip Op 32126(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2012

Hartshorne v. Pengat Technical Inspections, Inc.

The plaintiff, a flagman employed by New Hope Pipe Liners, LLC, suffered personal injuries when a motorist disregarded his warnings and sped through a work zone, causing a high-pressure hose, operated by Pengat Technical Inspections, Inc., to strike his legs. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court partially granted Pengat's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, but denied dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Upon appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting summary judgment to Pengat on the remaining claims after finding Pengat established it lacked the requisite control over the work site, a key factor for liability under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Safe Place to WorkWorksite ControlDangerous ConditionAppellate DecisionSubcontractor LiabilityFlagman Accident
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commer v. District Council 37, Local 375

Plaintiff Roy Commer filed an action against Civil Service Technical Guild, Local 375, and District Council 37 (collectively, 'Defendants'), alleging two primary claims: (1) that the Local Union improperly amended its Constitution, violating the AFSCME Constitution, and (2) that the Defendants violated the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) by failing to certify his election as president. Defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion to dismiss, determining that the Election Claim was preempted by Title IV of the LMRDA, which designates the Secretary of Labor as the exclusive enforcer for post-election challenges, thereby precluding private action under Title I. Regarding the Amendment Claim, the court found that Commer had chosen to pursue internal union remedies with the International Union’s Judicial Panel and had not yet exhausted them, thus depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Labor Union DisputeUnion Election ChallengeLMRDA PreemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionExhaustion of RemediesInternal Union GovernanceUnion Constitution AmendmentOfficer Election CertificationFederal Court JurisdictionLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
References
16
Case No. ADJ7210580
Regular
Feb 17, 2012

DAVID COLLINS vs. CROWLEY TECHNICAL SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a finding of concurrent jurisdiction for an injured seaman. The seaman was employed by Crowley Technical Services, an agent of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and injured while working on the U.S.S. Curtis, a vessel owned by a U.S. agency. Because the seaman was a member of the crew of a U.S. government-owned vessel and employed by a U.S. agent, federal law dictates exclusive jurisdiction, precluding California from adjudicating the claim.

Exclusive JurisdictionAdmiralty LawSeaman StatusJones ActLHWCACrew MemberMaritime AdministrationSuits in Admiralty ActPublic Vessels ActConcurrent Jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. ADJ1491093 (MON 0109851) ADJ686324 (MON 0281527)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

ANGELICA GABRIELLA vs. TAD TECHNICAL SERVICE CORP., LIBERTY MUTUAL 29073 GLENDALE

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) regarding their workers' compensation claim against TAD Technical Service Corp. and Liberty Mutual. The WCAB reviewed the applicant's petition and the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Finding no grounds for reversal, the WCAB denied the petition for reconsideration. The order adopts and incorporates the judge's reasoning, upholding the original decision.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportADJ1491093ADJ686324DENYING RECONSIDERATIONANGELICA GABRIELLATAD TECHNICAL SERVICE CORP.LIBERTY MUTUALRONNIE G. CAPLANE
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1988

Litizia v. Jonathan Woodner Co.

Gino Litizia, a worker, was injured on a construction site in Queens when struck by falling lumber. He sued Technical Concrete Corp. and Jonathan Woodner Co., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for lack of protective devices. The Supreme Court initially granted partial summary judgment on liability, but the Appellate Division modified this decision. The court denied the motion for partial summary judgment, reinstating comparative negligence defenses, reasoning that proximate cause is generally a jury question and that Technical Concrete Corp.'s agency status needed further determination.

Construction AccidentFalling Object InjuryScaffolding LawLabor Law ViolationSummary JudgmentProximate CauseComparative NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityElevated Work Site Risk
References
6
Case No. 17 NY3d 238
Regular Panel Decision

The People v. Jarrod Brown

Judge Read's dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of CPL 440.46, as amended by Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2011. The majority expanded resentencing eligibility to include parolees due to a name change from 'Department of Correctional Services' to 'Department of Corrections and Community Supervision'. Read contends that this amendment was merely a technical change reflecting an agency merger, not a substantive legislative intent to broaden resentencing relief, which should remain limited to incarcerated persons as per the original 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. The dissent emphasizes that statutory text should be interpreted within its context, highlighting that the 2011 amendment was part of an article VII budget bill for restructuring and technical corrections, not substantive law changes. Therefore, Read believes the legislature did not intend to expand the ameliorative sweep of the provision.

Resentencing EligibilityCPL 440.46Drug Law Reform ActParoleesIncarcerated PersonsStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentChapter 62 Laws of 2011Technical AmendmentSubstantive Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2004

Goffredo v. City of New York

The petitioner sought to serve a late notice of claim after developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to exposure at the World Trade Center site between 2001 and 2002. The Supreme Court initially denied the application based on a technical affidavit defect and later denied a renewed application as untimely, citing the expiration of the one-year-and-90-day statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the claim accrued in December 2001 when symptoms manifested, not in February 2003 with the formal diagnosis. The majority rejected the argument that the renewed motion should relate back to the original or that the court's delay in decision-making warranted a different outcome. A dissenting opinion argued for reversal, asserting the initial application was timely, the technical defect minor, and the court's delay and invitation to renew should compel consideration on the merits.

Late Notice of ClaimStatute of LimitationsWorld Trade Center ExposureChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseAccrual DateProcedural DefectsMotion to RenewAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionGeneral Municipal Law
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 111 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