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

Transit-mix Concrete Corp. v. Local Union No. 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America

Transit-Mix Concrete Corporation and Local Union No. 282, parties to collective bargaining agreements, had a dispute regarding seniority rights of former Colonial Sand and Stone Co. Inc. drivers after Transit-Mix acquired Colonial's assets. An arbitrator's 1979 award on employee seniority was later found by the NLRB and Second Circuit to have been improperly communicated by Local 282, leading to a breach of its duty of fair representation. Consequently, Local 282 was ordered to request reopening the arbitration to provide notice and a retroactive grace period for affected employees. Transit-Mix sought to stay this arbitration, arguing against reopening a final award and raising procedural defenses like statute of limitations and laches. The court, emphasizing the broad arbitration clause in their agreements, denied Transit-Mix's petition to stay and granted Local 282's cross-petition to compel arbitration, deferring the merits and procedural questions to the arbitrator.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority DisputeDuty of Fair RepresentationNLRB OrderLabor-Management DisputesArbitration EnforcementJudicial Review of ArbitrationFederal Labor LawUnion Liability
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McConnell v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local 445

Plaintiff William McConnell filed a lawsuit against Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 445, alleging the Union retaliated against him for his criticism of their contract policies. McConnell claimed he was removed from hiring lists and faced false charges leading to his dismissal as a business agent. He asserted violations of his free speech and due process rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Although his initial grievance with the NLRB was dismissed, the court found it did not bar the LMRDA action. However, the court ultimately granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that McConnell's LMRDA claims were time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations applicable to unfair labor practices.

LMRDA claimsUnion retaliationFree speech rights (Union)Due process (Union discipline)Statute of limitationsNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Unfair labor practicesExclusive NLRB jurisdictionFair representation suitsLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
References
19
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05898
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2023

Reyes v. Episcopal Senior Hous. Greece, LLC

Plaintiff, Miguel Reyes, was injured when a window fell on his head during a demolition project, leading him to file an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied his motion for partial summary judgment on liability, citing a triable issue on whether his conduct was the sole proximate cause. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted the third-party defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed both decisions. It found that plaintiff's conduct was, at most, comparative negligence and not the sole proximate cause, thus granting his motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The Appellate Division also reinstated the third-party complaint, determining that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether plaintiff suffered a grave injury as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Construction Site SafetyDemolition ProjectFall from HeightLabor Law Section 240(1)Scaffolding SafetyComparative NegligenceSole Proximate Cause DefenseSummary Judgment MotionGrave Injury DefinitionThird-Party Indemnification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nardolillo v. Sovinsky

Plaintiffs, members of the Tile, Marble and Terrazzo Helpers Subordinate Union No. 8, sought to recover funds contributed by their employer to a trust fund. They argued that the discontinuation of employer contributions rendered them ineligible for benefits, making the trust's purpose impossible and leading to unjust enrichment by the fund. Defendants countered that such payments would violate the trust agreement and IRS provisions, maintaining that plaintiffs remained eligible. The court determined that the fund was a common trust, not individual escrowed accounts, and upheld the trustees' interpretation that ensured plaintiffs' continued eligibility, preventing a forfeiture of rights. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion was denied, and the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.

Union Trust FundEmployee BenefitsEmployer ContributionsTrust AgreementBenefit EligibilityFund AdministrationBreach of TrustFiduciary DutyDismissal MotionLabor-Management Relations Act
References
6
Case No. ADJ6590798 ADJ6590824
Regular
Mar 25, 2013

ELEANOR CASTILLO vs. SENIOR HELPERS, ENDURANCE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. This was done to allow further study of complex factual and legal issues. The Board also granted the defendant's request to file a supplemental response addressing new issues raised by the lien claimant in their Answer. All future filings in this case must now be submitted directly to the Appeals Board Commissioners, not to district offices or via electronic filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationSupplemental ResponseLien ClaimantReasonable ExpensesSanctionsAppeals Board Rule 10848Labor Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10561Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
1
Case No. ADJ6590798, ADJ6590824
Regular
May 14, 2013

SENIOR HELPERS vs. ENDURANCE INSURANCE, FIRST COMP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the original Findings of Fact. The Board found no basis to award penalties, attorneys' fees, or costs to the defendant against the lien claimant or their attorney, upholding the administrative law judge's credibility findings. While not condoning either party's conduct, the Board admonished them for adversarial tactics and returned the matter to the trial level. The defendant's attempt to shift blame regarding prior settlement offers and representation was unsupported by evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJLien claimantattorneys' feessanctionsReport and Recommendationsupplemental responsesettlement agreement
References
1
Case No. ADJ6590798; ADJ6590824
Regular
May 08, 2012

ELEANOR CASTILLO vs. SENIOR HELPER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SCO

The defendant sought to have the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) amend the Minutes of Hearing to include certain "stricken" issues. The WCAB denied this Petition for Removal. They agreed with the judge that the defendant's proposed issues, such as estoppel and contract law, are matters for the judge to consider when determining the enforceability of a lien settlement. The Board found no reason to bifurcate the issues, as evidence and testimony on all matters were already present.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMinutes of Hearinglien settlementenforceable agreementbifurcate issuesapplicant's injurycourse of employmentcosts and sanctions
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00169 [168 AD3d 1199]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2019

Matter of Villagra v. Sunrise Senior Living Mgt.

Claimant Rosalind M. Villagra sought workers' compensation benefits after an injury sustained at work. Her claim was initially disallowed by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) due to a lack of prima facie medical evidence. Subsequently, claimant filed an application for Board review, requesting a rehearing or reopening of her claim, arguing the WCLJ's decision was inconsistent. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her application, deeming it an untimely appeal from the WCLJ's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board applied an incorrect statutory framework and should have evaluated the application as one for rehearing or reopening.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimeliness of AppealApplication for RehearingReopening of ClaimPrima Facie Medical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory FrameworkProcedural ErrorRemittal to Board
References
5
Case No. ADJ7750099
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

JERRI USREY vs. SIERRA OAKS SENIOR CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to affirm the finding that Sierra Oaks Senior Center violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating applicant Jerri Usrey's employment due to her filing a workers' compensation claim. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning on witness credibility and evidence resolution. However, the determination of reinstatement and lost wages was deferred due to insufficient evidence regarding the availability of suitable work and applicant's ability to perform it. The award of $10,000 for the section 132a violation was affirmed, with further proceedings to address reinstatement and lost wages.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardreinstatementlost wagespoor performanceindustrial injuryadverse treatmentcredibility assessmenttrier of fact
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Atria Senior Living Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernest Rodriguez sued his former employer Atria Senior Living Group under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rodriguez moved for partial summary judgment on one ADA reasonable accommodation claim, one ADA retaliation claim, and six FMLA interference claims. The Court denied Rodriguez's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. The Court granted summary judgment to Atria on the ADA reasonable accommodation claim, the ADA retaliation claim, and four of the FMLA claims, finding no genuine disputes of material fact. However, for two FMLA claims concerning health insurance premiums and concurrent workers' compensation leave, the Court denied summary judgment to both parties due to unresolved factual disputes.

ADA accommodationADA retaliationFMLA interferenceSummary judgmentMedical leaveDisability discrimination100% healed policyHealth insurance premiumsWorkers' compensationEmployee benefits
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 281 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