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

Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.

The plaintiff, Genesco, Inc., a shoe manufacturer, sued Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, alleging four causes of action. The first cause of action claimed a breach of collective bargaining agreements and a no-strike clause. The second alleged violations of Section 303 of the L.M.R.A. by inducing other employers to cease doing business with Genesco. The third and fourth causes of action were common law torts alleging inducement of other labor organizations to breach contracts and a scheme to destroy Genesco's business. The court dismissed the first cause of action, finding no valid contract existed at the time of the strike. The second cause of action survived dismissal, while the third and fourth causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend, as they were deemed arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionPreemptionPendent JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

La Vack v. National Shoes, Inc.

In August 1980, the plaintiff allegedly fell and was injured while working at Ames Department Store, whose shoe department was operated by J. Baker, Inc., a subsidiary of National Shoes, Inc. The property where Ames is located is owned by Irene Hendra, Arthur Rotundo, Thomas Rotundo, and Henry Rotundo (collectively, the Rotundos). Following the plaintiff's negligence action, defendants asserted cross claims against each other. Ames was granted summary judgment holding Baker liable to indemnify it, and Baker was dismissed from the plaintiff's claim due to a prior worker's compensation ruling. The Rotundos' motion for summary judgment, seeking indemnification from Baker, National, and Ames, was initially denied, leading to this appeal. The court found Ames obligated to indemnify the Rotundos based on a valid lease indemnification clause, reversing the denial of summary judgment against Ames. However, it affirmed that Baker and National were not obligated to indemnify the Rotundos, as Baker was not in privity of contract with the paramount landlord.

IndemnificationSummary JudgmentNegligenceLease AgreementGeneral Obligations LawPrivity of ContractSubleaseAppellate DecisionCross ClaimsWorker's Compensation Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.

Plaintiffs Ellen M. Sullivan and Mark Gross filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., alleging a vertical resale price maintenance scheme that violated antitrust laws and New York’s Consumer Protection Act. They claimed to have suffered economic injury due to inflated shoe prices. Defendant New Balance moved to dismiss the complaint. District Judge Sweet granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate direct injury from purchasing from conspiring retailers. The court also dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice, granting plaintiffs leave to refile the complaint within 30 days, provided they limit the class to those who purchased from conspiring retailers.

AntitrustClass Action LawsuitResale Price MaintenanceSherman Act Section 1Clayton Act Section 4Consumer StandingMotion to DismissEconomic InjuryPrice Fixing SchemeIndirect Purchaser Standing
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 1992

Fitter v. Gussini Shoes, Inc.

The case involves an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, an employee of Gussini Shoes, Inc., when his manager, Dean Frasco, allegedly kicked a box the plaintiff was leaning on, causing a dislocated shoulder. The plaintiff sued both Gussini and Frasco. Frasco appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment to dismiss the assault cause of action against him, while the plaintiff cross-appealed the dismissal of claims against Gussini and the negligence claim against Frasco. The cross-appeal was withdrawn. The court affirmed the order denying Frasco's motion for summary judgment on the assault claim, citing a question of fact regarding his intent to harm. It also noted that the Statute of Limitations argument was not raised by Frasco in his initial motion.

Personal InjuryAssaultNegligenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityIntentional TortWorkers' Compensation ExceptionQuestion of FactStatute of LimitationsAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J. & T. Cousins Co. v. Shoe & Leather Workers Industrial Union

The court considered an order that granted a motion to strike out the first separate defense presented in the appellant's answer. This order was subsequently affirmed by the judicial body. Additionally, the decision included the affirmation of ten dollars in costs and disbursements. Notably, the court did not provide a formal opinion for this decision. The panel of judges, consisting of Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Seudder, Tompkins, and Davis, JJ., all concurred with the outcome.

motion practiceappellate reviewaffirmative defensecourt costsconcurring judgesjudicial orderprocedural law
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05102 [163 AD3d 1449]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2018

Matter of Lift Line, Inc. (Amalgamated Tr. Union, Local 282)

This case involves an appeal to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, concerning an arbitration award related to an employee's termination. The Supreme Court had partially vacated an arbitrator's decision to reinstate a grievant with back pay and benefits, reimposing the original penalty of employment termination. The Appellate Division reviewed whether the arbitrator's award was irrational or exceeded his power under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii), considering a collective bargaining agreement's "just cause" provision and an attendance policy. The court found that the arbitrator's determination, which considered the specific facts of the grievant's one-minute tardiness, offered a "colorable justification" and was not irrational. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the petition to vacate, granted the application to confirm, and fully confirmed the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee TerminationJust Cause StandardAttendance PolicyJudicial Review of ArbitrationCPLR Article 75Appellate Division DecisionLabor DisputeReinstatement with Back Pay
References
13
Case No. ADJ3566620 (SBR 0331934) ADJ3758235 (SBR 0336076)
Regular
Jun 01, 2009

MELANIE MEDBERY vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Payless Shoe Source's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her right knee and lower extremity. Crucially, they affirmed the administrative law judge's determination that Payless violated Labor Code section 132a by unlawfully terminating the applicant. The employer's stated reason for termination, a violation of the attendance policy, was deemed pretextual and not supported by the evidence or the company's own handbook.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight Knee InjuryRight Lower Extremity InjuryLabor Code Section 132aViolationDiscriminationDifferential Treatment
References
1
Case No. ADJ7774238
Regular
Dec 05, 2013

MIRIAM PANTOJA vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Payless Shoe Source, administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was filed **untimely**. Specifically, the petition was filed more than 25 days after the original Findings were issued on September 13, 2013, exceeding the statutory 20-day filing deadline plus mailing extensions. Therefore, the Board found the petition procedurally deficient and dismissed it.

Petition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissFindingsadministrative law judgeReport and RecommendationLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013mailingWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. VNO 0461030
Regular
Nov 30, 2007

CHRISTOPHER MENDEZ vs. GRAY LIFT, INCORPORATED, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award and returned the case for further proceedings to determine the general employer's (Lyon Lift, Inc.) potential liability for the applicant's injury. This is to address whether Lyon had duties under workplace safety laws (Labor Code sections 6400-6404) and if its negligence, if any, contributed to the injury caused by a defective saw provided by the special employer. The Board will then determine if Lyon is entitled to a third-party credit for the applicant's settlement based on its own negligence and established credit principles.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardThird-party creditGeneral employerSpecial employerImputation of negligenceLabor Code sections 6400-6404Workplace safetyPrimary employerSecondary employerDual employment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regensdorfer v. Central Buffalo Project Corp.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant Central Buffalo Project Corporation and third-party defendant United States Shoe Corporation, doing business as Casual Corner, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. An out-of-possession landlord, Central Buffalo, was not liable as it relinquished control, was not contractually obligated to repair nonstructural defects, and did not have notice of the condition. The loose stairway treads were deemed a non-structural defect. Additionally, Casual Corner was contractually obligated to indemnify Central Buffalo. The amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, effective September 10, 1996, was deemed prospective only and not applicable to this action.

Landlord LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawStructural DefectNotice of DefectAppellate ReviewOut-of-Possession LandlordLease Agreement
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 273 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