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

Gould v. General Mills, Inc.

Plaintiff Gould, a longshoreman, was injured in 1973 while unloading a vessel and sued General Mills, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of warranty due to defective equipment. General Mills, the vessel's owner and cargo consignee, then filed a third-party complaint against Great Lakes Associates, Inc., the stevedore and Gould's employer, claiming negligence and breach of Great Lakes's warranty of workmanlike performance. Great Lakes moved for summary judgment, citing the exclusivity provision of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 905) as immunity from General Mills's indemnity claim. The court denied Great Lakes's motion, ruling that General Mills's claim was not solely based on Gould's injury but primarily on Great Lakes's alleged breach of independent contractual obligations and implied warranties to perform work safely.

Longshoreman injuryNegligence claimBreach of warrantyThird-party actionSummary judgment motionLongshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActExclusivity provisionIndemnification claimWorkmanlike performanceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. CA 12-02373
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2013

ABBOTT, JONATHAN v. CROWN MILL RESTORATION DEVELOPMENT

The plaintiff, Jonathan Abbott, commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Crown Mill Restoration Development, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall. A default judgment was entered against Crown Mill after it failed to appear at a damages inquest. Crown Mill moved to vacate the default judgment, citing law office failure and meritorious defenses, including that the Workers' Compensation Law barred recovery. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, affirming the denial to vacate the default judgment but granting the motion in part to vacate the default judgment only insofar as it awarded specific damages. The case was remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for a new assessment of damages. The court found Crown Mill failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default and did not prove fraud or misrepresentation. Additionally, appeals related to an enforcement action based on piercing the corporate veil were dismissed or affirmed.

Default JudgmentVacaturDamages AssessmentAppellate ReviewLaw Office FailureCorporate Veil PiercingNegligencePersonal InjuryAppealsJudicial Discretion
References
27
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01980, 525411
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Matter of Portlette v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

Claimant Oneshiua Portlette, a bus operator, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits. Initially, her employer, Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, paid benefits for injuries Portlette reported sustained in a bus accident. However, the employer later suspended payments and raised fraud concerns after video evidence contradicted Portlette's account of the incident and her injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Board found that Portlette failed to prove a causally-related injury and made material misrepresentations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's consideration of the employer's evidence despite a lack of timely notice of controversy, and upholding the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions which supported that no causally-related injury occurred.

Workers' CompensationCausationFraudVideo EvidenceMedical OpinionNotice of ControversyPreclusionAppellate ReviewBus OperatorInjury Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2009

Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Plaintiff James Tepperwien filed a Title VII action against his former employer, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., alleging same-sex sexual harassment by a co-worker, Yito Messina, and subsequent retaliation. The harassment included physical assault and sexually explicit remarks, which Tepperwien reported to management. Entergy moved for summary judgment on claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment and a portion of the retaliation claim, finding sufficient factual disputes for trial. However, the court granted summary judgment to Entergy on the constructive discharge claim, concluding that the plaintiff's working conditions were not objectively intolerable.

Same-sex harassmentTitle VIIHostile work environmentRetaliationConstructive dischargeSummary judgmentWorkplace discriminationSexual harassmentEmployer liabilityFederal court decision
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 1959

In Re the Arbitration Between Wamsutta Mills & Pollock

Wamsutta Mills, an employer, initiated a proceeding in New York Supreme Court to stay an arbitration brought by the Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO. The union removed the case to a federal district court, arguing it constituted a 'suit for violation of contracts' under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act. District Judge Dimock determined that a proceeding to stay arbitration primarily involves contract interpretation rather than violation, thereby ruling the removal unauthorized. After a reargument, the court reaffirmed its decision, emphasizing that the arbitration was governed by Massachusetts law, making the employer's motion a separate, non-removable proceeding. Consequently, the motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

Arbitration StayLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301(a)Federal Court JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionContract InterpretationCollective Bargaining AgreementMassachusetts LawNew York LawRemand Motion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mighty Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Sinensky

Plaintiff, Mighty Knitting Mills, sought an injunction against defendant, Knitgoods Workers Union Local 155, to stop picketing its premises. Plaintiff argued the picketing was unlawful, aiming to breach its agreement with Local 138, and violated employee rights. Defendant contended its right to picket for organizational purposes and to protest plaintiff's unfair labor practice of entering into a contract with Local 138 before hiring production workers. The court found that plaintiff's contract with Local 138 likely constituted an unfair labor practice. Concluding that the dispute was a legitimate labor dispute and peaceful picketing is constitutionally protected, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove the picketing was for an unlawful purpose and dismissed the complaint.

Labor DisputePicketing InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeCollective Bargaining AgreementOrganizational PicketingFirst Amendment RightsFourteenth Amendment RightsLabor Law ViolationsCivil Practice Act DisputeUnion Recognition
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07342 [189 AD3d 970]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2020

Benitez v. Bolla Operating LI Corp.

Walter Hernandez Benitez, a former deli worker, initiated a putative class action against Bolla Operating LI Corp. and other entities. He sought unpaid 'spread-of-hours' compensation, alleging that his employment at various Bolla Market locations entitled him to such pay under the Hospitality Industry Wage Order. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The Appellate Division, Second Department, further affirmed this ruling, concluding that the Bolla Market locations did not meet the regulatory definitions of 'restaurants' or '[f]ast [f]ood [e]stablishments.' Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed spread-of-hours compensation, and his motion for class action certification was denied as academic.

Unpaid WagesSpread-of-Hours CompensationHospitality Industry Wage OrderClass ActionMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Deli WorkersRestaurant DefinitionFast Food EstablishmentAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07123 [211 AD3d 1298]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Lambert v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

The case involves Joseph Lambert, a claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits for work-related repetitive use injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded a schedule loss of use (SLU) for his right arm, left arm, and right leg, payable weekly. Subsequently, Lambert requested the remaining SLU award be paid in a lump sum, which the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The employer, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, appealed this decision, arguing that a lump sum request must be made at the time of the initial award. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b) do not impose time limitations on an injured employee's request for a lump sum payment of an SLU award.

Schedule Loss of UseLump Sum PaymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityClaimant RightsEmployer AppealLegislative IntentPayment Timing
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayes v. Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers

The case involves plaintiff George A. Mayes suing Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers, and its officers for alleged discrimination in job referrals and denial of rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The defendants counterclaimed, seeking expenses incurred from Mayes' "baseless charges" against union members James Tommaney and Dan Lewis, citing violations of the Union's constitution and state law tort and breach of contract claims. Mayes moved for summary judgment, arguing good faith in filing charges under LMRDA and lack of court jurisdiction over the counterclaims. The court found material factual disputes regarding Mayes' motives, asserting jurisdiction over the counterclaims under 29 U.S.C. § 185. It also determined that the tort and breach of contract claims were sufficiently pleaded, thereby denying Mayes' motion for summary judgment and allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

Labour LawUnion DisputeSummary JudgmentCounterclaimsLMRDAFree SpeechUnion ConstitutionJurisdictionTort ClaimsBreach of Contract
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,211 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