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

In Re Enron Corp.

Enterprise Products Operating L.P. filed a motion for resolution of dispute against Enron Gas Liquids, Inc. (EGLI) regarding lien claims for pre-petition services. Enterprise asserted a total lien claim of $888,059.09 under Texas law for various services including storage, trucking, fractionation, and product treatment of natural gas liquids. EGLI acknowledged a portion of the lien related to trucking and storage but disputed the claim for fractionation and product treatment services. The court examined whether Enterprise qualified as a 'mechanic, artisan, or materialman' under Article XVI, § 37 of the Texas Constitution. The court ultimately denied the fractionation and product treatment lien, finding that Enterprise's complex engineering and technical operations did not fit these traditional definitions. Additionally, the court denied Enterprise's request for post-petition attorneys' fees, citing the absence of a contractual agreement for such fees.

Bankruptcy LawLien EnforcementTexas Constitutional LawSecured ClaimsAttorneys' FeesCommercial DisputeNatural Gas LiquidsFractionation ServicesWarehouseman's LienDebtor-in-Possession
References
12
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. International Union of Operating Engineers

The plaintiff alleged racial discrimination and violations of state and federal labor laws against Local 158 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, and its agents. The plaintiff claimed he was denied training for a plant operator position and that the union failed to properly process his grievances, motivated by racial discrimination and retaliation. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing various legal deficiencies including lack of jurisdiction for LMRA claims, no individual liability under Title VII, and insufficient evidence for discrimination, failure to promote, and retaliation claims. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all counts, finding no actionable breach of duty of fair representation, discriminatory intent, or adverse employment action, and dismissed other claims based on lack of jurisdiction or being time-barred.

DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActEqual Pay ActTitle VIISection 1981
References
54
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

Hygiene Industries v. Plastic, Metal, Novelty & Allied Workers' Union Local 132-98

Hygiene Industries sought to prevent Plastic, Metal, Novelty and Allied Workers’ Union, Local 132-98, I.L.G.W.U. from arbitrating a grievance concerning the proposed closure of two plants in Brooklyn, New York. Hygiene argued the dispute was not arbitrable because the collective bargaining and settlement agreements might expire before the plant closings. The Union contended that the settlement agreement’s duration was tied to Hygiene’s operations in Sardis, Mississippi, and that the broad arbitration clauses covered the dispute. The court emphasized the strong federal policy favoring arbitration in labor disputes. Ultimately, the motion to enjoin arbitration was denied, as the court found the expiration date of the Settlement Agreement ambiguous and a matter for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide.

ArbitrationLabor LawCollective BargainingPlant ClosureInjunctionGrievance ProcedureContract DurationFederal PreemptionJudicial DeferenceArbitrability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutton Area Community v. Board of Estimate

This case addresses a challenge by petitioners against the Board of Estimate's approval of a major private development in Manhattan. The core issue revolves around a last-minute change in the designated sewage treatment plant from Ward's Island to Newtown Creek, the latter lacking secondary treatment and operating over capacity. The court found that this eleventh-hour correction, three days before the Board's vote, deprived the public and relevant agencies of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the significant environmental impacts related to sewage disposal. Citing violations of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with environmental review procedures. Consequently, the judgment confirming the Board of Estimate's determination was reversed, and the Board's approval of the project was nullified.

Environmental LawSEQRASewage DisposalAdministrative Agency ActionPublic ParticipationEnvironmental Impact StatementJudicial Review of Agency DecisionsUrban PlanningRegulatory ComplianceWater Pollution
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1998

Rice v. City of Cortland

Plaintiff was injured in June 1994 at a waste treatment plant in Cortland County, New York, while working for Structural Associates, Inc., the general contractor. The injury occurred during drilling operations performed by subcontractor Reith’s Hole Drilling Service, Inc., when a metal cable from a drill rig contacted overhead power lines, electrocuting the plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the City of Cortland, the plant owner, and Reith, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially made several rulings on summary judgment motions. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims against Reith, finding that Reith, as a subcontractor, lacked the authority to control the injury-producing activity. The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against the City, establishing the City's nondelegable duty as owner to comply with specific safety regulations like 12 NYCRR 23-1.13. Additionally, Reith's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's common-law negligence claim was granted.

Labor LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentSubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityWorkplace SafetyElectrocution InjuryConstruction AccidentNondelegable DutyIndustrial Code
References
14
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 3,406 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