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
Aug 10, 2004

Claim of Mickens v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1993 and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A stipulation agreement between the claimant and employer, which adjusted weekly awards and set future payments, was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The claimant appealed this decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting the stipulation's invalidity, inadequate legal representation, and excessive counsel fees. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision and denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the stipulation binding and the counsel fee award within the Board's discretion, and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Stipulation AgreementCounsel FeesBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewPsychological ImpairmentsWork-related InjuryDecision AffirmedDiscretionary PowersLegal RepresentationBenefit Adjustment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electric Alarm Trade Ass'n v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This action was initiated under Section 301(a) of the National Labor Relations Act by a plaintiff seeking $450,000 in damages from a defendant union. The plaintiff alleged a breach of Article VIII, section III of their collective bargaining agreement, which stipulated the union's obligation to organize the burglar alarm industry. The defendant moved to dismiss the action or, alternatively, to stay proceedings pending arbitration. The Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, affirming the validity of the plaintiff's claim for relief. However, the Court granted the alternate motion, concluding that the dispute fell within the broad arbitration clause of the collective bargaining agreement and ordered the proceedings to be stayed pending arbitration.

Labor LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractNational Labor Relations ActStay of ProceedingsDamages ClaimUnion ObligationsGrievance ProcedureFederal Court Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochal v. Television Technology Corp.

David Ochal suffered severe electrocution injuries in a work-related accident in February 1988. His personal injury action was settled by stipulation in November 1999, which included a structured settlement and an agreement by a third-party defendant to pay $50,000, waive a substantial workers' compensation lien, and cover pre-settlement medical bills. In May 2004, Ochal moved to enforce the stipulation, seeking payment for approximately $20,000 in medical bills and a pro rata share of litigation costs from the third-party defendant's workers' compensation carrier. The Supreme Court denied his motion, and Ochal appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial, ruling that Ochal had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by submitting medical bills 4.5 years post-settlement and that his claim for pro rata litigation costs lacked merit due to his failure to reserve this right during the settlement.

Structured SettlementStipulation of SettlementContract InterpretationImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingWorkers' Compensation LienMedical BillsPro Rata Share of Litigation CostsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractWaiver of Rights
References
10
Case No. ADJ7277939
Regular
Jan 11, 2011

MISUK BRIANS vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the defendant sought removal after the judge took a mandatory settlement conference off calendar and demanded further responses. The Board granted removal, rescinding the judge's order and criticizing the procedural deviation from policy. The Board found the applicant's stipulations adequate despite the defendant's withdrawal of agreement. The Board will approve the stipulations unless either party objects in writing within twenty days.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceStipulations with Request for AwardOrder Taking MSC Off CalendarWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 5502(a)Policy and Procedure Manual section 1.91(C)(3)Status ConferenceAdequacy
References
0
Case No. AHM 0124082 AHM 0124083 AHM 0124085 AHM 0146447 AHM 0146449 SBR 0329311
Regular
Oct 29, 2007

JEANNETTE RODRIGUEZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, alleging errors in the stipulated agreement regarding injured body parts, indemnity amounts, and the applicability of Labor Code section 4658(d). The Board denied the petition, upholding the validity of the stipulations absent a showing of good cause to set them aside, especially given the applicant was represented by counsel at the time of agreement. The case is returned to the trial level solely for the correction of identified clerical errors in the stipulations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4658(d)Clerical ErrorsGood CauseWithdrawal of StipulationInadvertence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2006

McNamara v. Tourneau, Inc.

In this employment discrimination case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pro se plaintiff Charles McNamara and defendant Tourneau, Inc. reached a settlement during court-ordered mediation, signing a stipulation that included "Standard 21 day language." McNamara later refused to sign a formal agreement, alleging misrepresentation during mediation and asserting his right to revoke. Tourneau moved to enforce the settlement, arguing it was a binding contract. The Court found the stipulation to be a fully binding preliminary agreement. However, due to ambiguity in the "Standard 21 day language"—which pertained to the ADEA's 21-day consideration and 7-day revocation periods—and considering extrinsic evidence, including Tourneau's own proposed formal agreement, the Court concluded that McNamara retained the right to revoke prior to signing the formal contract. Consequently, Tourneau's motion to enforce the settlement was denied, and the case was reinstated, as McNamara's revocation was deemed timely.

Employment DiscriminationADA ClaimADEA WaiverSettlement EnforcementContract AmbiguityMediation ProgramPro Se PlaintiffRevocation RightsOWBPA ComplianceNew York Contract Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi

Justice Froessel dissents, advocating for the modification of the lower court's order. The petitioner seeks to stay arbitration concerning a dispute stemming from nine identical franchise agreements. Justice Froessel argues that the clear language of these agreements, coupled with the absence of a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of consent and the specific nature of the agreements, grants the petitioner the right to refuse consent to their assignment, citing several cases including Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp. The dissenting opinion also asserts that the rule of good faith does not apply in this context. Consequently, it is argued that the portion of the dispute related to damages from the arbitrary withholding of consent to assignments is not arbitrable. Therefore, the orders of the court below should be modified to grant the petitioner's application to stay arbitration regarding the damages claim arising from the refusal to consent to the assignment of franchise agreements; otherwise, affirmed.

arbitration stayfranchise agreementsassignment of contractsconsent withholdingcontract interpretationgood faith rulenon-arbitrable claimsappellate reviewdissenting opinioncontractual rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2002

Claim of Estate of Lutz v. Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from two Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a waiver agreement. The decedent, Beverly Lutz, her employer, and carrier had a proposed settlement agreement that was filed but not yet approved when she died. The Board, through Commissioner Tremiti, refused to honor the agreement after the carrier and Special Funds withdrew their consent. Although an approval notice was mistakenly issued, the Board later corrected it, ruling the agreement was never approved. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to correct its error and that the withdrawal of consent by the carrier and Special Funds justified the disapproval of the agreement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementDeath BenefitsBoard ReviewJurisdictionConsent WithdrawalStatutory InterpretationRegulation ValidityAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement between a wealthy plaintiff (husband) and a defendant (wife). The defendant challenged the agreement, alleging overreaching and manifest unfairness during negotiations, while the plaintiff sought its enforcement. Although the motion court granted a trial on the maintenance waiver, it dismissed other counterclaims. Justice Feinman's dissent argues that summary judgment should be denied for all counterclaims, emphasizing the need for a full trial to assess the credibility of the parties and resolve material factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's conduct during negotiations and the agreement's potentially unfair terms, particularly highlighting the distinct legal standard of 'manifest unfairness' in marital agreements.

prenuptial agreementmarital agreementsummary judgmentunconscionabilitymanifest unfairnessoverreachingfiduciary dutyequitable distributionspousal maintenance waiverproperty distribution
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2006

In Re Northwest Airlines Corp.

Northwest Airlines Corporation and its affiliates (Debtors) filed a motion under § 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code to reject a collective bargaining agreement with the Professional Flight Attendants Association (PFAA) after PFAA's membership failed to ratify a negotiated agreement. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Allan L. Gropper, found that the rejection was necessary for the Debtors' reorganization. The court also determined that PFAA rejected the Debtors' proposal without good cause and that the balance of equities clearly favored rejection. Consequently, the court authorized the Debtors to reject the agreement and implement new terms, specifically those of the March 1 Agreement, with a fourteen-day stay to allow for further negotiation. This decision aims to facilitate the airline's financial restructuring and emergence from Chapter 11.

Bankruptcy LawCollective BargainingAirline ReorganizationLabor DisputeSection 1113 MotionUnion NegotiationsFlight AttendantsWage ConcessionsWork Rule ChangesGood Cause Standard
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 3,297 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