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. 2020 NY Slip Op 00660
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Jones v. General Traffic Equip. Corp.

Claimant Renford Jones, who sustained a work-related back injury resulting in a permanent partial disability, sought a hearing to modify his reduced earnings awards. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) modified the awards. The employer, General Traffic Equipment Corp., and the State Insurance Fund (SIF) appealed the WCLJ's decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for Board review was denied due to alleged incompleteness, specifically the omission of the hearing date for their objection. SIF's subsequent application for reconsideration was also denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that SIF's response, which provided the exact time of the objection in the digital audio recording of the sole hearing, adequately met the regulatory requirements. The court remitted the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its decision, dismissing the appeal from the denial of reconsideration as academic.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ProcedureBoard ReviewRegulatory InterpretationAppellate ReviewProcedural Due ProcessWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeDigital Audio RecordingPleadings and MotionsDisability Benefits
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 1979

Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation

Plaintiff Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from holding a hearing concerning alleged defects in Fiat vehicles and a repurchase campaign. Fiat contended it was deprived of adequate notice, an opportunity to present its views, and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. The court, presided over by District Judge Metzner, applied the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, emphasizing that judicial intervention is typically warranted only after a final agency determination. The court denied Fiat's motion, finding that Fiat received reasonable notice, its constitutional claims could be addressed at the hearing and were subject to de novo review, and there was insufficient evidence of agency bias. Consequently, the court ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled on September 28, 1979.

Preliminary InjunctionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewExhaustion of RemediesDue ProcessAdequate NoticeImpartial TribunalNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationVehicle SafetyProduct Recall
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Penn Traffic Co.

The Penn Traffic Company, a Chapter 11 debtor, sought to reject a Project Agreement with COR Route 5 Company, LLC, under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The agreement involved a land exchange, supermarket construction, and a lease-back. COR had completed all its obligations, including tendering a $3.5 million reimbursement and the signed lease, but Penn Traffic refused to accept. The court denied the motion, ruling that the Project Agreement was not an executory contract when the motion was filed, as COR had substantially performed its duties. The court emphasized that Penn Traffic's refusal to accept performance, invoking the Doctrine of Prevention of Performance, could not justify rejecting the contract as executory.

Bankruptcy LawExecutory ContractsSection 365(a)Contract RejectionSubstantial PerformancePrevention of Performance DoctrineDebtor-in-PossessionChapter 11Commercial Real EstateLand Swap
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 1997

Di Blasi v. Traffax Traffic Network

Plaintiff, an on-air traffic announcer for Traffax Traffic Network, was discharged after reporting for jury duty despite his supervisor's directive to report to work. He subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Judiciary Law § 519 and wrongful/retaliatory discharge, as well as breach of contract. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that neither section of the Judiciary Law provided a private cause of action and that his employment was at-will, precluding a breach of contract claim. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that allowing a private right of action would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme and acknowledging the Legislature's veto of a bill to amend Judiciary Law § 519 to include a civil remedy. The court also found no support for a breach of contract claim, reiterating that his at-will employment could be terminated for any reason.

jury dutywrongful dischargeretaliatory dischargeemployment at willprivate right of actionlegislative intentstatutory interpretationsummary judgmentbreach of contractemployee protection
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guard Insurance Group, Inc. ex rel. Baxter v. Techtronic Industries Co.

Guard Insurance Group, as assignee for Scott Baxter, filed a product liability and negligence action against Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., and other defendants, including Home Depot, USA, Inc. The case stems from injuries Baxter sustained while using a Ryobi table saw manufactured and sold by defendants, and Guard seeks reimbursement for workers' compensation payments. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses of substantial modification, spoliation of evidence, and statute of limitations. The Court denied the motion to dismiss claims based on substantial modification and spoliation, finding issues of fact. While claims for failure to warn and implied warranty against manufacturing defendants were dismissed, the implied warranty claim against Home Depot survived due to conflicting testimony on the purchase date. The motion for summary judgment was largely denied, allowing most claims to proceed to trial.

Product LiabilityNegligenceSummary Judgment MotionWorkers' Compensation SubrogationTable Saw AccidentProduct Design DefectSafety Guard RemovalSpoliation of EvidenceBreach of Implied WarrantyStatute of Limitations Defense
References
26
Case No. ADJ7892653
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

PETER ALVAREZ vs. CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the order that joined the Office of the Attorney General as a party. The Board found the Attorney General was not a necessary party as the applicant clearly identified the California National Guard as their employer. Furthermore, the Board raised a jurisdictional issue, as National Guard service under Title 32, which may apply here, generally precludes state workers' compensation benefits. The case is returned to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction.

Petition for RemovalOrder Joining Party DefendantCalifornia National GuardState Active DutyTitle 32Title 10Inactive Duty TrainingMilitary and Veterans CodeNachbaurJurisdiction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kolomick v. New York Air National Guard

The plaintiff sought to challenge a military personnel decision concerning his qualifications as a medical pararescue technician in the New York Air National Guard, pursuing a claim under the Human Rights Law after an unsuccessful internal discrimination complaint. The court considered whether civilian courts possessed subject matter jurisdiction over such military employment decisions. Justice O'Brien concurred with the decision to affirm the lower court's ruling, asserting that civilian courts lack jurisdiction to interfere with military personnel matters. This position is supported by established legal precedent and policy reasons emphasizing the military's distinct hierarchical structure and the need to avoid judicial second-guessing of professional military judgments. The opinion also discussed the inapplicability of anti-discrimination statutes like Title VII and the ADEA to military personnel without explicit legislative intent, further reinforcing the principle of non-interference by civilian courts in military affairs.

Military Personnel DecisionsSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial ReviewNational GuardHuman Rights LawDiscrimination Complaint ProcedureMilitary LawFederal PreemptionCivilian Court InterferenceMilitary Efficiency
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 1989

Claim of Moses v. City of New York Department of Traffic

On December 17, 1981, a claimant sustained a compensable injury while employed by the City of New York Department of Traffic. The employer paid the claimant for lost time and later sought reimbursement under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4). The claimant, who was on an extended leave of absence and serving as a union president, requested direct payment for the lost time, arguing she was no longer an employee. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied direct payment. The Board's decision, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal, reasoned that the claimant could still utilize her credited leave time upon returning to work or be compensated for it upon resignation.

Workers' CompensationLeave of AbsenceReimbursementDirect PaymentEmployer-Employee RelationshipAccrued Leave TimeWage ReimbursementUnion PresidentCompensable InjuryAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ7013901
Regular
May 03, 2011

CHANG HYUN KIM vs. SYSTEM CARWASH, LLC, GUARD INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of the applicant's case, Chang Hyun Kim, against System Carwash, LLC and Guard Insurance Group. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) as the basis for their denial. The specific reasons for the denial are detailed in the WCJ's report, which was not provided here. Therefore, the applicant's petition for reconsideration was formally rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' compensation administrative law judgeDenying ReconsiderationSystem CarwashLLCGuard Insurance GroupADJ7013901Ronnie G. CaplaneAleonso J. Moresi
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 1995

Wackenhut Corp. v. International Union, United Plant Guard Workers

Wackenhut Corporation, a security services provider, filed suit to vacate an arbitration award, while the International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America, Amalgamated Local 515 counterclaimed to enforce it. The dispute arose from Wackenhut's termination of employee Fernando T. Coelho after Consolidated Edison Company revoked his site access to a nuclear facility. An arbitrator ruled that Wackenhut violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by terminating Coelho without just cause, awarding him back pay, benefits, and reinstatement. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sprizzo, affirmed the arbitrator's finding of a CBA violation, concluding that 'relieve from duty' differed from 'discharge for just cause'. However, the court vacated the portions of the award granting back pay, benefits, and reinstatement at another facility, holding that the arbitrator exceeded his contractual authority. The court enforced the arbitrator's directive for Wackenhut to renew efforts to persuade Con Ed to reinstate Coelho's security clearance.

ArbitrationVacatur of Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee TerminationSite Access RevocationManagement Rights ClauseJust CauseBack Pay DisputeEmployee ReinstatementJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 264 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