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

Barth v. CBIS Federal, Inc.

Plaintiff Francis T. Barth brought an action against his former employer, CBIS Federal Inc., alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York's Human Rights Law (HRL), alongside a claim for breach of employment agreement. Barth, employed since 1986, was terminated in May 1990 at age 48 after his 'Telecommunication Specialist' position on the Andover Contract was eliminated due to a restructuring and perceived funding issues. He argued that his discharge was a pretext to favor younger employees and reallocate his duties. However, the court found insufficient evidence to establish age discrimination, noting that any absorption of duties by other employees did not constitute direct replacement and that age differences were minimal or non-existent for key personnel. The court also dismissed the breach of employment agreement claim, ruling that Barth's employment was 'at will' and that the company's policy guide did not guarantee continued employment or relocation. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment AgreementSummary JudgmentADEAHuman Rights LawWrongful TerminationAt-Will EmploymentPretextPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting Analysis
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2000

Stuart Dean Co. v. Metal Polishers, Production & Novelty Workers Union, Local 8A-28A

The U.S. District Court denied Stuart Dean Co.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against Metal Polishers, Production and Novelty Workers Union, Local 8A-28A, to stop a work stoppage. The dispute centered on whether a job site was a "site of construction," thus exempting it from a collective bargaining agreement's no-strike and arbitration clauses. The court found Stuart Dean Co. unlikely to succeed on the merits, noting an arbitrator had already determined a similar site was a construction site. Crucially, the court also ruled it lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction under 29 U.S.C. § 104, as the underlying dispute's arbitrability was not clear, falling outside the narrow Boys Markets exception.

Federal CourtPreliminary InjunctionLabor LawWork StoppageUnionCollective BargainingArbitrationAnti-Injunction ActBoys Markets DoctrineJurisdiction
References
6
Case No. ADJ1666303
Regular
Oct 21, 2011

ALTHEA RUSSELL vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, BROADSPIRE

This case involves a supplemental award of attorney's fees to the applicant's attorneys, Charles Clark and Stuart Barth, following a successful defense against the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to make this supplemental award under Labor Code § 5801. The WCAB reviewed the fee requests and, after disallowing fees for a separate sanctions motion, awarded Clark $2,800.00 and Barth $1,207.50 for their appellate services.

Labor Code § 5801supplemental attorney's feeswrit of reviewpetition for writ of reviewreasonable feeattorney servicesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSecuritas Security ServicesBroadspireCourt of Appeal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merante v. IBM

The plaintiff, a structural ironworker, sustained personal injuries after falling 20 feet at a construction site owned by IBM and general contracted by Mellon Stuart, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240. The plaintiff tripped over a reinforcement bar while moving a welding cable. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, concluding the defendants failed to provide proper protection. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting the lack of netting, scaffolding, and effective safety lines for safety belts, thus confirming the defendants' absolute liability for the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryConstruction SafetyLabor Law ViolationAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentWorkplace AccidentFall ProtectionAppellate ReviewEmployer NegligenceNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stromfeld v. Smith

Stuart Stromfeld, a DEA agent, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent his transfer from Atlantic City, New Jersey, to Miami, Florida, arguing that the transfer was in retaliation for previous Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints alleging religious discrimination. Stromfeld had a history of promotion denials and complaints against DEA administration figures, notably John Fallon and Michael Tobin, which led to a demotion that was later reversed by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The court, presided over by District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, acknowledged the hardships the transfer would impose on Stromfeld and his family, but ultimately denied the motion. The judge determined that Stromfeld failed to demonstrate "extraordinary" irreparable harm, a higher standard required in federal employee cases, which is a prerequisite for granting preliminary injunctive relief.

Preliminary InjunctionFederal EmployeeTransferRetaliationReligious DiscriminationEEOC ComplaintMSPB DecisionIrreparable HarmDEA AgentDistrict Court
References
9
Case No. ADJ2496388 (AHM 0127594)
Regular
Nov 02, 2009

Janie Stuart vs. OWENS ILLINOIS; Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT

Attorney's fees and costs granted to Janie Stuart's attorney, Ullasini Joy Dholakia, in the amount of $2,100.00 and $116.20 respectively.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5801Supplemental Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewReasonable Attorney's FeesCostsOwens IllinoisGallagher BassettUllasini Joy DholakiaDholakia & Associates
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2000

Stein v. Beaver Concrete Breaking Co.

Stuart Stein appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Beaver Concrete Breaking Co., Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing that a person can have both a general and special employer for Workers' Compensation Law purposes. Since Stein received workers' compensation benefits from his special employer, JAB Construction, Inc., and Beaver was determined to be his general employer, Beaver was shielded from the lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, and 29 [6].

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTort LawNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwartz v. Fortune Magazine

Plaintiff Barth David Schwartz sued FORTUNE Magazine for breach of contract, specifically concerning paragraphs 17 and 32 of an agreement dated August 1, 1997, related to selling special advertising sections. A jury initially found in favor of Schwartz on the breach of paragraph 32, awarding $108,000 in damages. FORTUNE subsequently moved for a judgment as a matter of law. The court granted FORTUNE's motion, finding that FORTUNE did not breach paragraph 17, and that its actions to terminate the contract under paragraph 32 were made in good faith and provided sufficient notice. Additionally, the court determined that Schwartz failed to present evidence of damages directly caused by the alleged breach of the pretermination notice provision, leading to the setting aside of the jury's damage award and entry of judgment for FORTUNE on both claims.

Breach of contractContract terminationJudgment as a matter of lawRule 50(b)Pretermination noticeIndependent contractor agreementAdvertising salesContract interpretationDamagesJury verdict
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 1996

In Re Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc.

Stuart L. Kreisler, the debtor's former chief executive officer, moved to have his claim against Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc. (RLW) estimated for voting purposes in RLW's plan of reorganization. Kreisler argued most of his claim, arising from postpetition termination, was an administrative expense, with a smaller unsecured claim. The debtor, RLW, denied any claim. Chief Judge Tina L. Brozman conducted an evidentiary hearing to estimate the claim due to time constraints before the confirmation hearing. The court determined that Kreisler's severance claim would likely be allowed as a postpetition quantum meruit administrative expense, estimating his prepetition unsecured claim related to unpaid bonus at $279,000, and the severance portion of his prepetition claim at zero. The ruling also addressed disputes concerning EBIT calculation for bonus determination and the allocation of the bonus between pre- and post-petition periods.

BankruptcyClaim EstimationSeverance PayAdministrative ExpenseQuantum MeruitEmployment AgreementDebtor ReorganizationPostpetition ClaimPrepetition ClaimBonus Calculation
References
13
Case No. ADJ4189587
Regular
Mar 24, 2017

VERA ZAY vs. STUART ANDERSON'S BLACK ANGUS, CHUBB GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Vera Zay's petition for reconsideration in the case against Stuart Anderson's Black Angus. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. Additionally, the Board admonished defense counsel for violating page limits, citing non-existent evidence, and raising new issues on reconsideration, warning of potential sanctions.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Director Rule 10205.12(10)Page-limit requirementEvidence not in the recordNew issues on reconsiderationSanctionsLab. Code§ 5813Cal. Code Regs.
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 36 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