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

Duemmel v. Ruggeri-Minster, Inc.

The Supreme Court erred by denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff was a special employee. Despite being paid by a general employer, the plaintiff's injuries occurred while performing services under the control and direction of the defendant, exclusively for the defendant's benefit. This established the plaintiff as a special employee as a matter of law, meaning the plaintiff's prior receipt of Workers' Compensation benefits legally bars this current action.

special employee doctrinesummary judgmentworkers' compensation barappellate reviewemployer controlexclusive benefitemployment relationshipjudicial errorNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1961

SPECIAL PRODUCTS COMPANY OF TENN. v. Jennings

Sixty-two striking employees of Special Products Company claimed unemployment benefits after their jobs were filled during a labor dispute. The Commissioner and Board of Review allowed these claims, a decision upheld by the Chancery Court of Hamilton County. Special Products Company appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, arguing against benefit payments and seeking a non-charge against its experience rating. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decree, ruling that the disqualification for a labor dispute ceased once the strike was abandoned and employees sought re-employment. The Court found that the subsequent unemployment was due to the unavailability of jobs, not the strike itself, thereby entitling the former employees to benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsLabor DisputeStrikeJob ReplacementsEmployment Security ActVoluntary Quitting DisqualificationMisconduct DisqualificationExperience Rating PenaltySupreme Court DecisionStrike Termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

A maintenance employee for the New York City Housing Authority sustained a right knee injury in March 1978 during a mugging and reinjured it in May 1979 while moving a refrigerator. His application for accident disability retirement was denied by the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, whose medical board found no causal relationship between the 1978 incident and the disability, and no accident in 1979. Special Term initially vacated this determination, concluding the 1979 event was an accident. However, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's judgment, holding that an injury occurring without an unexpected event during ordinary employment duties does not constitute an accidental injury. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove an unexpected event, as his knee merely 'gave way' while moving a refrigerator, and therefore dismissed the petition.

Accident Disability RetirementNew York City Employees’ Retirement SystemKnee InjuryPerformance of DutiesCausal RelationshipMedical Board OpinionCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAccidental Injury DefinitionBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. 14-18-01107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2020

Changchun Gaoxiang Special Pipes Co., LTD ( Golsun) v. Flexsteel Pipeline Technologies, Inc.

Appellant Golsun, a Chinese company, appealed the denial of its special appearance, which challenged personal jurisdiction in a Texas court. Appellee FlexSteel sued Golsun for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and other torts, alleging Golsun used FlexSteel's proprietary pipe design and manufacturing methods due to the unlawful disclosures by a former FlexSteel employee, Bin Chen, who later worked for Golsun. The trial court denied Golsun's special appearance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Chen's Texas contacts were attributable to Golsun as his employee, establishing minimum contacts, and that exercising jurisdiction comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceTrade Secrets MisappropriationBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceBreach of Fiduciary DutyAgency LawEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorMinimum Contacts
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Degale-Selier v. Preferred Management & Leasing Corp.

This legal excerpt examines the concept of dual employment, focusing on general and special employers under Workers’ Compensation Law. It reiterates that immunity extends to all employers when a plaintiff accepts workers’ compensation benefits, regardless of the corporate relationship between entities. The core issue revolves around defining a "special employee" and establishing this status as a matter of law. In the presented case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment, as they failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was a special employee of Preferred Management & Leasing Corp. or that Preferred was an alter ego or joint venture with the plaintiff's employer, 21st Avenue Transportation Co., Inc. The decision emphasizes the factual nature of special employment status and the burden of proof on the moving party.

Dual EmploymentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSummary JudgmentAlter EgoJoint VentureEmployer LiabilityCorporate EntitiesAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trapani v. Consolidated Edison Employees' Mutual Aid Society, Inc.

This case addresses claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against Consolidated Edison Employees’ Mutual Aid Society, Inc. (Mutual Aid) and its administrative officer, Paul R. Westerkamp. Plaintiffs, Consolidated Edison employees represented by Local 3, seek an equitable share of Mutual Aid's assets and a special emergency loan fund after their membership ceased in 1983. Building on an earlier decision, the court found that defendants retained benefit assets attributable to Local 3 for the benefit of Local 1-2, violating ERISA. The court also determined that Mr. Westerkamp breached his fiduciary duty by mismanaging assets and participating in a settlement detrimental to Local 3. Consequently, Mr. Westerkamp is barred from administering the Staten Island Relief Fund, and the parties are directed to propose methods for equitable asset distribution.

ERISAEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanFiduciary Duty BreachAsset MismanagementEquitable DistributionUnion BenefitsConsolidated EdisonMutual Aid SocietyPaul R. WesterkampLocal 3 IBEW
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2002

Small v. Winter Bros.

The plaintiff, an employee of a general contractor, sustained personal injuries allegedly caused by an employee of the defendant subcontractor. After receiving workers' compensation benefits, the plaintiff filed an action against the defendant for damages. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing that its employee was a special employee of the plaintiff's employer, thereby making them co-employees and barring the action under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6). The Supreme Court of Rockland County initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the determination of special employee status is typically a question of fact, and in this case, there remained triable issues regarding the surrender of complete control over the alleged special employee.

personal injuryworkers' compensationspecial employeesummary judgmentquestion of factappellate reviewco-employee liabilitysubcontractor liabilityemployment statusdamages
References
2
Case No. 79-CV-53
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Davis Acoustical Corp.

This action stems from a civil contempt proceeding against the defendants for violating the overtime pay and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), originally enjoined by a 1979 Consent Judgment. A special master was appointed to investigate the alleged violations, determine employee status, calculate back wages, and address prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. The special master found a pattern of FLSA violations, concluded that individuals classified as 'independent contractors' were in fact 'employees' under the FLSA, and recommended a fine of $1,318,648.93, plus simple prejudgment interest. The court reviewed numerous objections from both the defendants and the plaintiff, ultimately upholding the special master's findings regarding the violations, employee classification, the admission of evidence, damages for unidentified employees, and the award of prejudgment interest. The court also affirmed the special master's refusal to compound interest daily or award attorney's fees to the plaintiff, and confirmed the authority to order payment schedules. Consequently, the court accepted the special master's report in its entirety and ordered the defendants to pay the specified fine and prejudgment interest.

FLSA violationsovertime payrecord-keeping violationscivil contemptspecial masterback wagesprejudgment interestindependent contractor statusemployee misclassificationcompensatory fines
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 10,821 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