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
Feb 15, 1990

Narine v. Handler

Oduth Narine, an employee of Protection Systems Specialists, Inc., was injured while inspecting a ventilation system. Narine and his wife initiated a negligence action against his employer and co-employee Howard Handler, alleging failure to provide a safe workplace. The defendants sought summary judgment, claiming the suit was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, given Narine had already received benefits. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order was modified; summary judgment was granted to Protection Systems Specialists, Inc. due to the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation benefits. However, the denial of summary judgment for Handler was affirmed, as questions of fact remained regarding his employment relationship.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCo-employee LiabilityFactual QuestionsAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torres v. DeMatteo Salvage Co.

Guillermo Torres filed an action against De-Matteo Salvage Co. Inc., Joseph DeMatteo, Carmine DeMatteo, and Amalia DeMatteo, alleging unlawful termination under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. Torres claimed he was discharged for refusing to operate an unsafe truck. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), invoking the Younger abstention doctrine due to a parallel state court action. The Court examined the applicability of Younger abstention, specifically considering whether the state civil proceedings were "akin to criminal prosecutions." The Court concluded that Younger abstention was inappropriate because the state court action was between private parties, not initiated by a state body in its sovereign capacity, and did not aim to sanction the federal plaintiff for a wrongful act. Therefore, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied.

Abstention DoctrineYounger AbstentionRule 12(b)(1) motionSurface Transportation Assistance ActWhistleblower protectionLabor LawFederal JurisdictionState court proceedingsCivil procedureMotion to dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fuller v. E & M Freight Handlers, Inc.

Plaintiff, injured in 1980 while delivering freight, initiated a tort action and claimed workers' compensation benefits. In April 1982, plaintiff settled with E & M Freight Handlers, Inc. and Daniel Scalza for $65,000, despite his attorney's advice against it. Plaintiff subsequently moved nunc pro tunc for court approval of the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law section 29, subdivision 5. Defendant opposed the motion, arguing non-compliance with the procedural requirements for such approval. The court denied the motion without prejudice, emphasizing that compliance with statutory procedures is necessary, even if compensation payments haven't been made yet.

Workers' Compensation LawTort ActionSettlement ApprovalNunc Pro TuncThird-Party ActionProcedural RequirementsDeficiency of CompensationCarrier ConsentState Insurance FundDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. ADJ6914901, ADJ3554819 (GRO 0003162), ADJ1000021 (GRO 0002782)
Regular
Mar 07, 2016

OSIEL GARZA vs. COUNTY OF TULARE, CORVEL

The WCAB granted the employer's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that required claims handlers to appear at a status conference. The Board found the mandatory appearance of claims handlers from out of the local area to be burdensome and costly, causing substantial prejudice. While affirming the general order to rescind a previous award, the WCAB amended it to remove the personal appearance requirement for the claims handlers. This decision emphasizes that defense counsel's presence and a claims handler's availability by phone generally suffice for such conferences.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDecision After RemovalOrder Rescinding Findings of FactAwardand OrdersCounty of TulareCorvelState Compensation Insurance FundWCJ
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2007

Local 78, Asbestos, Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers v. Termon Construction, Inc.

This action, brought under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, involved breaches of a collective bargaining agreement between Local 78, a labor union, and Termon Construction, Inc. The Court issued an oral opinion finding Termon had breached multiple articles of the CBA, including failures to pay wages and benefits, apply terms to all asbestos handlers, use Local 78 handlers, and allow union representatives site access. A subsequent trial on damages, where Termon failed to appear, led to findings based on the plaintiff's submissions. The Court awarded Local 78 damages for unpaid wages, benefit contributions, wages for union members, and legal fees incurred due to Termon's denial of access. Additionally, the Court granted attorney's fees and prejudgment interest due to the willful nature of the breaches, and directed the plaintiff to submit a proposed judgment.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractUnpaid WagesUnpaid BenefitsUnion RightsAttorney FeesPrejudgment InterestDamagesSection 301
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Essex Insurance v. Pingley

Essex Insurance Company (Essex) initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine its obligation to defend and indemnify Brim Recyclers, Inc., and William Burnett (appellants) in an underlying personal injury lawsuit filed by Roy L. Pingley. Pingley, an independent contractor working at Brim's salvage yard, sustained injuries while repairing a front loader. The Supreme Court granted Essex's motion for summary judgment, concluding that coverage was precluded under the policy's 'Salvage Yard-Auto Yard Endorsement' and 'Employer’s Liability Exclusion Amended'. However, the appellate court reversed this decision. The court found that both exclusionary clauses were ambiguous and, when construed against the insurer, did not apply to Pingley, who was an authorized worker rather than a customer or an employee as defined in the amended exclusion. Consequently, the appellate court denied Essex's motion for summary judgment and granted the appellants' cross-motion. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for the entry of a judgment declaring Essex obligated to defend and indemnify the appellants in the underlying action.

Insurance Coverage DisputeCommercial General Liability PolicySalvage Yard EndorsementEmployer's Liability ExclusionIndependent Contractor StatusSummary Judgment ReversalContract AmbiguityDeclaratory Judgment ActionAppellate Court DecisionPersonal Injury Claim
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Panek v. County of Albany

Plaintiff, an engineer technician, was injured while removing two 200-pound air handlers from an old air traffic control tower at Albany International Airport, a facility leased by the FAA from the County of Albany Airport Authority and operated for the County of Albany. This work was preparatory to the tower's scheduled demolition by a third-party contractor. While on an eight-foot stepladder, the plaintiff fell, sustaining injuries. He brought an action against the County and the Authority, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding his work constituted an 'alteration.' The Appellate Division reversed, but the Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court's order. The Court of Appeals held that removing the air handlers was a 'significant physical change' to the building, qualifying as an 'alteration' under Labor Law § 240 (1), irrespective of the tower's impending demolition.

Labor Law § 240(1)Building AlterationLadder Fall InjuryElevation HazardDemolition Preparatory WorkStatutory Duty BreachAbsolute LiabilityWorker SafetyFAA OperationsAlbany International Airport
References
5
Case No. ADJ10274750
Regular
Feb 09, 2017

LILLIAN MONTEIRO JOHNSON vs. ENERGY SALVAGE, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves Lillian Johnson's appeal of a WCJ's decision denying her right shoulder injury claim. Johnson argued the QME's opinion lacked substantial evidence and her treating doctors' reports supported a cumulative trauma injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial findings, and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings. This likely includes further development of the medical record.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating doctorsCumulative trauma injuryRight shoulderLabor Code section 5701Regular physicianFurther development of the record
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mead v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees

A General Chairman of the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (B.R.A.C.) sought an injunction against the International Union to prevent the transfer of funds from local lodge treasuries to a new Express Division in New York City, alleging a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) due to potential fund mismanagement. Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming the transfers were approved and lacked proof of present fiscal mismanagement. The court, adopting a restrictive view of Section 501 focused solely on financial dealings, determined that the plaintiff's claims, without evidence of current mismanagement, did not establish a legally cognizable cause of action. Therefore, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Union DisputesLabor UnionsInter-union Funds29 U.S.C. 501Injunctive ReliefMotion DismissalRestrictive Statutory InterpretationFinancial OversightOrganizational ReorganizationFederal Labor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Willo Packing Co. v. Butchers, Food Handlers & Allied Workers Union, Local 174

The Employer sued the Union for breach of a no-strike provision in their collective bargaining agreement, seeking damages. The Union moved to stay the action and compel arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the agreement's arbitration clause. The Employer countered that the grievance procedure leading to arbitration was exclusively for employee claims. District Judge Edward Weinfeld examined Articles 34 and 36 of the agreement, noting that the language regarding "complaints, grievances and disputes" implied a broader scope for arbitration beyond just employee grievances. Concluding that the no-strike breach could not be excluded with positive assurance from the arbitral process, the court granted the Union's motion, staying the action and directing the parties to arbitration.

Collective BargainingArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseLabor LawFederal CourtsContract InterpretationGrievance ProcedureMotion to StayNew York
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 45 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