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. ADJ-4279077 (SDO 0317244)
Regular
Jun 09, 2016

TINA BARONI vs. CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Decision After Removal ordering the striking of three sets of documents from the EAMS record. These documents pertained to San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2016-00006537-CU-IC-CTL and were submitted without objection. The WCAB previously issued a Notice of Intention to Strike these documents, stating they would be removed unless good cause to the contrary was shown. No objections were received from the parties or the identified attorneys.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalStriking DocumentsEAMS recordCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Indemnity CompanyLiquidationSan Diego Superior CourtObjectionGood Cause
References
1
Case No. ADJ4279077 (SDO 0317244)
Regular
May 05, 2018

TINA BARONI vs. CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has removed this case for the stated intention to strike documents filed by attorney Adrienne D. Cohen, who is not of record. These documents, which include notices related to a San Diego Superior Court case and a petition for writ of prohibition, are deemed irrelevant and improperly filed. The WCAB asserts that California Superior Courts lack jurisdiction over the WCAB and that CIGA failed to utilize proper procedural remedies. The WCAB will strike the documents unless good cause is shown to the contrary within ten days.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalStriking DocumentsEAMS RecordCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Indemnity CompanyCity of OceansideAdrienne D. CohenNotice of Related CaseWrit of Prohibition
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claims of Noss

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

Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 922

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
Dec 31, 1979

Bradford v. Air La Carte, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured at a catering facility operated by defendant Air La Carte, Inc. (Air), a subsidiary of ARA Services, Inc. (ARA). Air asserted an exclusive remedy defense under Workers' Compensation Law, arguing plaintiff was its employee. Plaintiff moved to strike this defense, and Air cross-moved for summary judgment. Special Term, relying on a Workers' Compensation Board decision naming ARA as the employer, ruled that only ARA was the employer, thus allowing the negligence action against Air. The Appellate Court modified the decision, holding that res judicata did not apply to Air because it was not a party to the prior compensation proceeding. The court also determined that whether Air was plaintiff's employer was a factual issue due to ambiguous documents, requiring further trial to explore the relationship between the parent and subsidiary corporations.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelEmployer-Employee RelationshipParent-Subsidiary LiabilitySummary JudgmentNegligence ActionAppellate ReviewDual Employment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Comair, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n (In Re Delta Air Lines, Inc.)

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

Devon Knitwear Co. v. Levinson

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

Rentner v. Sigman

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

Belinson v. Sewer District No. 16 of Town of Amherst

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. 1099
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Stature Electric, Inc.

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
Showing 1-10 of 1,484 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