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

Brock v. National Health Corp.

The Secretary of Labor initiated an action against National Health Corporation (NHC) alleging willful and repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically regarding unpaid overtime and failure to maintain accurate records for its staff accountants. NHC argued that these employees were exempt administrative personnel. The court, however, determined that the staff accountants' duties were primarily bookkeeping and did not involve the requisite discretion and independent judgment for exemption. Given NHC's history of similar violations, the court found the company's conduct willful and ruled in favor of the Secretary of Labor, mandating payment of three years of back wages and an equivalent sum in liquidated damages.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime PayRecord KeepingAdministrative ExemptionWillful ViolationBack WagesLiquidated DamagesEmployee ClassificationStaff AccountantsBookkeeping
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shultz v. Radio Officers' Union of the United Telegraph Workers

The Secretary of Labor filed an action against the Radio Officers’ Union (ROU) under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The Secretary sought to nullify the 1969 election for President and National Committeeman—Oakland due to two alleged incidents of misconduct. The court found that ROU President Joseph Glynn improperly interfered with Lester Parnell’s candidacy for National Committeeman—Oakland by coercing him to withdraw, violating 29 U.S.C. § 481(e). Additionally, the court found that ROU discriminated against presidential candidate R. C. Smith by failing to provide him with the union's ship list for campaign mailings, a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 481(c). Both violations were deemed to have potentially affected the election outcome. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the Secretary of Labor.

Labor Union ElectionElection MisconductLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Candidate EligibilityUnion DiscriminationFreedom of Speech (within union elections)Pension JeopardyCampaign LiteratureMembership List AccessInternal Union Remedies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reich v. Federation of Catholic Teachers, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor initiated an action to set aside the March 1993 election of the Federation of Catholic Teachers' officers and council members, alleging violations of Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The Secretary contended the election was unfair due to the official ballot promoting incumbents as "The Action Team" while listing challengers simply as "The Opposition," and improper involvement of the incumbent president, Margaret Menard, in the election process. The court found the ballot unfair, constituting a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 481(c), ruling that the incumbent slate designation "The Action Team" without a corresponding name for the opposition slate was a violation, regardless of intent. Given the close election margins, the court determined that this violation may have affected the outcome and ordered a new election under the Secretary's supervision. While the court dismissed the claim of improper involvement by Menard, it noted the election's excessive informality and casual attitude towards legal requirements, instructing future elections to ensure committee independence and adherence to Department of Labor guidelines.

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLMRDA Title IVUnion ElectionElection ViolationUnfair BallotIncumbent SlateOpposition SlateExhaustion of RemediesPrima Facie CaseBurden of Proof
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 1998

Avedis v. Herman

Russell E. Avedis, a former Labor Department economist, filed a complaint against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor after his federal disability benefits, awarded for a 1988 automobile accident injury, were terminated in 1993. The termination was based on a medical expert's finding that he was no longer disabled. Avedis contended the Secretary violated the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) by not referring him to a third "referee" physician despite a disagreement in medical opinions, and unconstitutionally deprived him of due process. The Secretary moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to FECA's preclusion-of-review provision. The court converted the motion into one for summary judgment, ultimately granting it in favor of the Secretary, finding that the Secretary's interpretation of "disagreement" under FECA Section 8123(a) was plausible and did not constitute a clear statutory mandate violation.

Disability BenefitsFederal Employees’ Compensation ActFECAJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessAdministrative LawSummary JudgmentMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation
References
30
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Solis v. SCA Restaurant Corp.

The Secretary of Labor brought an action against SCA Restaurant Corporation and its owner, Luigi Quarta, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, inadequate record-keeping, and retaliation. After a bench trial, the court found the defendants liable on all claims, determining their violations were willful. The defendants paid fixed weekly salaries despite employees working over 40 hours, falsified records, and threatened employees for testifying. The court awarded $137,867.12 in unpaid wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and $2,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. A prospective injunction was also issued to prevent future FLSA violations.

FLSA ViolationsMinimum WageOvertime CompensationRecord Keeping ViolationsEmployee RetaliationWillful ViolationsUndocumented WorkersLiquidated DamagesCompensatory DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Organized Maintenance, Inc. v. Brock (In Re Organized Maintenance, Inc.)

Organized Maintenance, Inc. (OMI), a Chapter 11 debtor, initially secured a Bankruptcy Court order in April 1985 that stayed the U.S. Department of Labor from pursuing debarment proceedings against OMI under the Service Contract Act, related to pre-bankruptcy wage and fringe benefit violations. The Bankruptcy Court's order also nullified a prior debarment decision and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants, including the Secretary of Labor, appealed this decision to the District Court. During the appeal, OMI expressed its desire to withdraw the adversary proceeding and consented to the continuation of debarment processes. Consequently, the District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's order as moot, dismissed the adversary proceeding, and permitted the defendants to resume debarment proceedings against OMI, with each party bearing its own costs.

BankruptcyService Contract ActDebarmentWage ViolationsMootnessAdversary ProceedingFederal Government ContractsChapter 11Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 1979

Marshall v. Baptist Hospital, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor sued Baptist Hospital, Inc., for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping provisions regarding radiologic technology trainees. The court found an employer-employee relationship existed, concluding the hospital primarily benefited from the trainees' labor due to the program's educational deficiencies and the trainees displacing regular employees. The hospital's good faith defense was rejected, and its violations were deemed willful, extending the liability period to three years. The court granted judgment for the plaintiff, ordering back wages with interest and injunctive relief against further violations.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAMinimum WageOvertime CompensationRecordkeeping ViolationsRadiologic Technology TraineesEmployer-Employee RelationshipEconomic Reality TestGood Faith DefensePortal to Portal Act
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphreys, Hutcheson & Moseley v. Donovan

This case involves the Chattanooga law firm Humphreys, Hutcheson & Moseley challenging the application of sections 203(b) and 204 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). The firm engaged in labor persuader activities for Southern Silk Mills, Inc., to dissuade employees from unionizing, specifically through speeches by partners William P. Hutcheson and Ray H. Moseley. The plaintiff argued that § 203(b) did not apply due to the disclosed nature of their activities, violated First Amendment rights, and that § 204 exempted them from disclosure based on attorney-client privilege. The Secretary of Labor counterclaimed to compel compliance. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's, ruling that the LMRDA's disclosure requirements apply to the firm's persuader activities and do not violate the First Amendment. Furthermore, the court found that the § 204 attorney-client exemption is parallel to common law privilege and does not preclude disclosure of the information required by § 203(b). The plaintiff was ordered to comply with the reporting requirements.

Labor LawLMRDAAttorney-Client PrivilegeFirst AmendmentLabor PersuaderDisclosure RequirementsSummary JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeUnionizationEmployer-Employee Relations
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fransen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

William Fransen sought federal disability benefits under the Social Security Act, claiming lower back injury, emphysema, and arthritis, but his application was denied by the Secretary of Health and Human Services after multiple administrative reviews. The District Court affirmed the Secretary's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that while other agencies, like the Department of Labor under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), had found Fransen totally disabled, these findings were not binding due to differing disability standards. The Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, which considered medical evidence from numerous physicians and Fransen's testimony, concluded he had the residual functional capacity for sedentary work, despite subjective complaints of pain. Ultimately, the court granted the Secretary's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Social Security DisabilityFederal Disability BenefitsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardResidual Functional CapacityChronic Back PainEmphysema DiagnosisArthritis ConditionTreating Physician Opinion
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 8,667 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