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
May 01, 1986

Tudor Fashions Ltd. v. Romney

The plaintiffs, Tudor Fashions Ltd. and David Meryl, Inc., sought a Boys Markets injunction to prevent the defendant Union, Blouse, Skirt & Sportswear Workers’ Union, Local 23-25, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, from striking or interfering with their business. The dispute arose from the Union's claim that David Meryl was an alter-ego of Tudor and thus bound by their collective bargaining agreement, which included a no-strike clause and arbitration. Although arbitration was underway, David Meryl's non-compliance with discovery led to the strike. The court denied the injunction, ruling that a no-strike clause cannot be enforced against a party not yet found to be contractually bound by the agreement. Furthermore, the court found that Tudor was not currently operating and thus not suffering irreparable harm.

Labor DisputeInjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationAlter-ego DoctrineAffiliate StatusNorris-LaGuardia ActLabor Management Relations ActFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00811 [235 AD3d 1075]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2025

Matter of Tudor v. Whitehall Cent. Sch. Dist.

Claimant Angel A. Tudor appealed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits, ruling she did not sustain a causally-related stroke. Tudor, a teacher/grant writer, alleged a stroke in April 2022 was precipitated by a work-related verbal disagreement. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's disallowance, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish a causal connection between her employment and the stroke, citing her multiple risk factors. The Board also found the stress causing her psychological injury was not greater than what similarly situated workers experienced, thus denying that aspect of her claim. Her subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was properly denied.

Workers' CompensationStrokeOccupational StressCausal RelationshipPsychological InjuryPreexisting ConditionsBoard ReviewAppellate DivisionHypertensionDiabetes
References
20
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07084
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2016

Tudor Insurance Co. v. Sundaresen

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, granting plaintiff Tudor Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment. The insurer sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Sundaresen defendants in an underlying personal injury action. The court found that a 'Contractor or Subcontractor Limitation' endorsement in the insurance policy barred coverage, as the injured worker was deemed a contractor or subcontractor of the insureds, regardless of whether they were an independent contractor, thus precluding coverage.

Insurance policyContractor exclusionSubcontractor exclusionDuty to defendDuty to indemnifySummary judgmentPersonal injury actionAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. CV-23-2329
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Angel Tudor

Claimant, a teacher/grant writer, sought workers' compensation benefits for a stroke and exacerbation of preexisting psychological conditions, alleging they were precipitated by a verbal disagreement with her school principal. Initially, her claim for an occupational stroke and exacerbation of posttraumatic stress and anxiety was established but later disallowed by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board also denied her application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant failed to establish a causal connection between her employment and her stroke, given her multiple risk factors and insufficient medical proof. The Court also determined that the stress experienced was not greater than that normally encountered by similarly situated workers, and the incident did not constitute an unusual workplace accident.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsOccupational StrokeCausal RelationshipWork-related StressPreexisting ConditionsPsychological Injury ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board AffirmationReconsideration DeniedSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ4631701
Regular
Oct 19, 2012

ROCIO SALINAS vs. TUTOR & SALIBA, INTERCARE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's previous decision in the case of Salinas v. Tutor & Saliba. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. This order is not a final decision on the merits, and parties retain the right to seek reconsideration of the future WCJ decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRescinded DecisionFurther ProceedingsWCJ DecisionTutor & SalibaIntercareADJ4631701OAK District OfficeOpinion and Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ9360252
Regular
Sep 09, 2015

TRISHA FITZGERALD vs. TUTOR SALIBA, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to further study the case of Trisha Fitzgerald versus Tutor Saliba and Zurich North America. However, the parties subsequently executed a Compromise and Release agreement. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the original April 21, 2015 Findings of Fact and Awards. The matter has been returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the Compromise and Release, with the option to reinstate the prior award if the settlement is not approved.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardsCompromise and ReleaseSettlementTrial LevelAdministrative Law JudgeRescindedReturned
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grawin v. Tudor Place Associates

This case concerns a firefighter's personal injury claims against a demolition contractor, alleging violations of General Municipal Law § 205-a and common-law negligence. The contractor's motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the complaint, was denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County, and this denial was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The affirmation was based on unresolved factual issues regarding whether the contractor's alleged violation of Administrative Code § 27-127, concerning building shoring, was related to the firefighter's injury sustained while using a defective ladder during a rescue. Additionally, questions remain about the common-law negligence claim, including the ladder's condition and the contractor's responsibility for its presence. The court emphasized that liability under the statute can extend irrespective of premises ownership or occupancy.

Personal InjuryFirefighterDemolitionSummary JudgmentNegligenceBuilding CollapseDefective LadderAdministrative CodeGeneral Municipal LawAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ3227442 (OAK 0279937)
Regular
Jan 12, 2009

ANTONIO BRAS vs. TUTOR-SALIBA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.

The Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was filed more than a year after the allowed time and is dismissed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND AWARDINDUSTRIAL INJURYPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTFURTHER MEDICAL TREATMENTVOCATIONAL REHABILITATIONDECLARATION OF READINESSATTORNEY REPRESENTATION
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormack International Corp. v. Vohra

McCormack International Corp. brought an action against multiple defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion. The plaintiff claimed that defendants used a scheme involving bad checks and threats from an organized crime figure to remove McCormack from a Tudor Hotel renovation project. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, dismissing the RICO claims for failure to establish a 'pattern of racketeering activity,' specifically lacking sufficient allegations of furtherance of fraud by mail and continuity of criminal activity for extortion. Additionally, the court denied plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint, rejected defendants' motion for sanctions, and denied plaintiff's motion for a retroactive enlargement of time to file objections to a prior report.

RICORacketeeringMail FraudWire FraudExtortionCivil ProcedureMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Rule 12(b)(6)Sanctions
References
31
Showing 1-9 of 9 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