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
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New York Times Co.

This case involves The New York Times Co. (Times) seeking a permanent injunction against the New York Newspaper Printing Pressmen’s Union No. 2 (Union) and to hold the Union in contempt of court. The dispute stems from a 1995 Consent Decree, part of an EEOC suit, aimed at increasing minority and female representation among Junior Pressmen. The Times alleged a work slowdown by the Union on August 19, 1998, in response to the Times notifying the EEOC of a proposed advancement of Juniors, an action the Times considered a good faith effort to comply with the Consent Decree. The Court found the work slowdown was deliberately caused by the Union and granted the permanent injunction, citing irreparable harm to the Times due to the perishable nature of its product and loss of goodwill. However, the Court denied the motion to hold the Union in contempt for an alleged September 1, 1998, slowdown, finding the evidence of non-compliance not clear and convincing and the connection to the Consent Decree too weak.

Labor DisputePermanent InjunctionWork SlowdownContempt of CourtConsent DecreeEEOC EnforcementTitle VIICollective BargainingNewspaper IndustryUnion Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Findling v. Community General Hospital

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in July 1995 and subsequently experienced intermittent lost time from work. In April 1998, claimant was awarded eight weeks of intermittent lost time, but sought review from the Workers’ Compensation Board, submitting a spreadsheet that indicated 13 weeks of lost time. The Board declined to consider the merits of her application, categorizing the spreadsheet as new evidence and citing claimant's failure to explain its prior non-submission. On appeal, the Court found that the Board erred in deeming the spreadsheet new evidence, a point the employer conceded. This error precluded the Board from fulfilling its fact-finding role and deprived the claimant of a review on the merits. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the case remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

Workers' CompensationIntermittent Lost TimeEvidence AdmissibilityBoard ReviewRemittalProcedural ErrorAppellate Court DecisionDisability BenefitsFact-Finding RoleClaimant Rights
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huether v. New York Times Building, LLC

Plaintiff John Huether, a carpenter, sustained injuries while unloading drywall from a truck during the construction of the New York Times Building. The accident occurred when an unsecured steel plate, used to bridge an 8-10 inch gap between the truck and loading dock, shifted, causing a dolly loaded with drywall to tip and crush his right leg. Plaintiffs sued building owners, general contractors, and the truck operator, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The court granted dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim as not gravity-related. For Labor Law § 241(6), the court found 12 NYCRR 23-1.22 (b)(3) applicable and violated, granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment, while other cited Industrial Code provisions were deemed inapplicable. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were dismissed against the building owners (NYT) due to lack of control, but were allowed to proceed against the general contractors (Turner and Amec) due to disputed facts regarding their control over the work methods and notice of unsafe conditions.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentLoading Dock SafetyUnsecured Bridging PlateIndustrial Code ViolationsGeneral Contractor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkPremises Condition
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Guardian Purchasing Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in May 1988, for which benefits were approved. In November 2002, while working for a different employer, claimant developed neck pain and sought to reopen the 1988 case to include this new injury. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the application to reopen was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, and the carrier was discharged from liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that a 1989 medical report was not timely filed nor sufficient to constitute a claim for neck injury. Additionally, the claimant failed to substantiate the assertion that the carrier waived the statute of limitations through an advance payment.

Time-barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNeck Injury ClaimBack InjuryMedical Report SufficiencyAdvance Payment of CompensationWaiver of LimitationsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liss v. Nassau County

Barry Liss filed claims against Nassau County and its departments, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and NYSHRL. Liss sustained work-related injuries and was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, requiring accommodations for working at heights and in hot temperatures. He contended that the defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations, leading to further injuries. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the ADA claims, finding them not time-barred and issues of fact regarding reasonable accommodation and qualification. However, state law claims for NYSHRL and intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with punitive damages, were dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to file a timely Notice of Claim and the non-recoverability of punitive damages against municipal defendants.

ADANYSHRLDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationFailure to AccommodateEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNassau CountyMultiple Sclerosis
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Manning

The claimant, a full-time college student who worked part-time, obtained full-time employment as a coding clerk during the summer break. When the school year resumed, the employer refused the claimant's request for part-time work, leading the claimant to leave employment to return to full-time studies and seek part-time work. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially found this termination to be under non-disqualifying conditions, asserting the claimant maintained part-time worker status despite summer full-time work. However, the appellate court disagreed, consistently holding that voluntarily leaving available employment to attend school does not constitute good cause under the Unemployment Insurance Law, deeming the reasons personal and non-compelling. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Voluntary QuitGood Cause for Leaving EmploymentUnemployment Benefits DisqualificationStudent EmploymentPart-time WorkFull-time WorkSchool AttendancePersonal Reasons for QuittingEmployer Refusal to AccommodateUnemployment Insurance Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 10,286 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