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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Claimants, employees of Lawrence Aviation Industries, Inc. and union members, commenced a strike in 1984. During the strike, they received weekly strike benefits from their union and later unemployment insurance benefits. The employer challenged these benefits, arguing that strike benefits were contingent on performing union duties, making claimants not 'totally unemployed,' and alleged willful misrepresentation. Both the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that the strike benefits were not conditional and no misrepresentation occurred. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that strike benefits not conditioned on services are not considered remuneration under 12 NYCRR 490.2 (b) and that the Board's factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, should not be disturbed.

Unemployment BenefitsStrike BenefitsTotal UnemploymentWillful MisrepresentationLabor UnionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceConditional PaymentsNew York Labor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1977

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves an appeal from a judgment that enjoined unions representing employees of the Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority (SIRTOA) from striking. SIRTOA, a public benefit corporation operating a commuter rail line in New York, argued that its employees, as public employees, are prohibited from striking under the New York State Taylor Law. The defendant unions contended they were governed by the federal Railway Labor Act, which permits strikes. The court affirmed the injunction, determining that SIRTOA's minimal connection to interstate commerce, primarily a single daily freight run, was outweighed by the State's compelling interest in preventing public employee strikes and ensuring essential commuter rail service for Staten Island residents.

Strike InjunctionPublic EmployeesRailway Labor ActTaylor LawInterstate CommerceState SovereigntyCommuter RailCollective BargainingNew York State LawFederal Preemption
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Comair, Inc., a debtor in bankruptcy, successfully sought a preliminary injunction against the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). Comair had obtained court approval to reject its collective bargaining agreement and planned to implement new employment terms. ALPA threatened a strike, arguing Comair's actions violated the Railway Labor Act's (RLA) status quo provisions. The court ruled that after lawful rejection of a collective bargaining agreement under the Bankruptcy Code, the RLA's status quo obligations do not apply. Therefore, Comair's implementation of new terms was permissible, and ALPA's proposed strike would violate its RLA duty to avoid interruptions to commerce. The motion for a preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining ALPA from engaging in a strike.

Bankruptcy LawLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementRailway Labor ActNorris-LaGuardia ActSection 1113Airline IndustryStrike InjunctionStatus Quo Doctrine
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Overnite Transportation Company filed a second amended complaint against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and numerous individuals, alleging violations of RICO, tortious interference with business and employment relations, and malicious destruction of property. The defendants moved to dismiss, transfer, and strike material from the complaint. The court denied the motion to transfer but addressed the motions to dismiss and strike. The court dismissed all predicate acts related to the Hobbs Act, Travel Act, state criminal extortion, and state criminal assault due to NLRA preemption, and also dismissed the state law tort claims. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss predicate acts sufficiently pleading attempted murder. The court also granted the defendants' motion to strike certain paragraphs as largely immaterial background information.

RICO ActLabor DisputeMotion to DismissMotion to StrikeAttempted MurderRacketeering ActivityNLRA PreemptionHobbs ActTravel ActTortious Interference
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike an affirmative defense presented by the defendant labor union. The union argued that the plaintiffs came to court with 'unclean hands' due to their alleged refusal to bargain collectively, constituting an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiffs contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over unfair labor practices, as this power is exclusively vested in the National Labor Relations Board. The court clarified that while the NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to *prevent* unfair labor practices, the court retains its inherent equitable power to deny relief to a party with 'unclean hands'. Therefore, the court found the union's defense legally sufficient and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike.

EquityInjunctionUnclean HandsNational Labor Relations ActLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionAffirmative DefenseMotion to StrikeCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case concerns a manufacturer's application to continue a temporary injunction against a trade union due to an ongoing strike and associated picketing. The dispute arose from disagreements over productivity and employee discharges, leading to union members picketing the manufacturer's facility in the Garment Center Capitol. While acknowledging the legality of strikes and peaceful picketing, the court found evidence of large numbers of picketers causing disorderly conduct, obstructing entrances, and interfering with the manufacturer's business and non-union employees. Judge Bijur concluded that the mass picketing constituted an unjust invasion of the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court granted a limited injunction, setting specific numerical limits for pickets at each entrance of the building to balance union's right to persuasion with plaintiff's right to conduct business freely.

injunctionlabor disputetrade unionpicketingstrikeemployer rightsemployee rightspeaceful persuasiondisorderly conducttemporary restraining order
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Plaintiffs commenced an action for the wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering of decedents Robert L. Belinson and Frank J. Lehman against the Town of Amherst and its sewer districts, following their deaths from fumes while checking sewer lift stations. Defendants raised workers' compensation as an affirmative defense, which plaintiffs moved to strike, arguing the sewer districts were distinct from the town. The court reversed the order granting plaintiffs' motion, ruling that the sewer districts are administrative departments of the Town of Amherst, not separate public corporations, based on interpretations of the General Construction Law and Town Law. Consequently, workers' compensation was deemed a proper defense, and the motion to strike was denied. The court also noted that while summary judgment was not sought, it could be pursued later.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingTown of AmherstSewer DistrictsMunicipal CorporationsDistrict CorporationsAffirmative DefenseStatutory InterpretationGeneral Construction Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Joshua Irby, a watchman, sued his employer for alleged race discrimination after being denied a promotion to a guard position, citing violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendant filed motions to dismiss the claims and strike certain demands. The court granted the motion to dismiss the Title VII claim due to the plaintiff's failure to file the formal complaint within the stipulated thirty-day period after filing the right-to-sue letter, upholding that this deadline is jurisdictional. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the § 1981 and § 1983 claims, citing insufficient information to determine if they were time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations, and also denied the motion to strike, noting that compensatory and punitive damages are permissible under § 1981.

Race DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationFailure to PromoteTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 198142 U.S.C. § 1983Statute of LimitationsMotion to DismissMotion to StrikeRight-to-Sue Letter
References
19
Case No. 1099
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The court ruled on a motion to strike the supplemental appendix and specific sections of the brief submitted by respondent David W. Howard. The motion was granted to the extent that the material in the brief referencing the supplemental appendix is deemed stricken. However, the motion to strike was otherwise denied.

Motion to strikeSupplemental appendixBriefCourt procedureProcedural ruling
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves multiple actions seeking damages from labor unions following the 1966 New York City transit strike. The defendants, referred to as "the Unions," moved for dismissal of all complaints due to legal insufficiency. Plaintiffs asserted various claims, including intentional violation of the Condon-Wadlin Act and a court injunction, prima facie tort, and breaches of human rights and contractual theories. The court granted the defendants' motions, ruling that the Condon-Wadlin Act does not create a private right of action for damages. It further determined that the alleged damages were too remote and indirect to sustain claims of prima facie tort, and that claims based on human rights declarations, stock diminution, and contract were without merit. The decision emphasizes that remedies for the general public regarding public employee strikes must originate from legislative action rather than judicial adjudication.

Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor UnionsCondon-Wadlin ActPrima Facie TortStatutory InterpretationCivil LiabilityRemote DamagesInjunction ViolationCollective Bargaining
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 771 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