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

Same Day Delivery Service, Inc. v. Penn Star Insurance

Same Day Delivery Service, Inc. sued its insurer, Penn-Star Insurance Company, seeking a declaration that Penn-Star must cover a personal injury lawsuit filed against Same Day. Penn-Star moved for summary judgment, arguing Same Day failed to provide timely notice of the claim and that the incident was excluded from the policy. The Court granted Penn-Star's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Same Day's notice to Penn-Star was untimely by approximately ten months, or at least two months even under Same Day's arguments, and that the delay was inexcusable under New York law. Consequently, Penn-Star is not obligated to provide coverage.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentTimely NoticePolicy CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentPersonal InjuryNew York LawInsurance Policy ExclusionCommercial General LiabilityAs Soon As Practicable Clause
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04009 [150 AD3d 1507]
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Matter of Jie Cao v. Five Star Travel of NY Inc.

Claimant, a bus driver, was involved in a 2007 accident and successfully applied for workers' compensation benefits, naming "Five Stars Travel Bus Inc." as his employer. Five Star Travel of NY Inc. (Five Star) did not appear after being served, leading to a WCLJ finding it liable for awards and assessments. After subsequent awards and medical treatment authorizations, a settlement was approved in 2013. In May 2015, Five Star sought to reopen the claim and challenge the prior decisions and settlement, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the application due to untimely submission of new material evidence and the non-reviewable nature of an approved waiver agreement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationBus AccidentUninsured EmployerClaim ReopeningSettlement AgreementBoard ReviewAppellate DivisionTimelinessContinuing JurisdictionDue Process
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scarfi v. Bright Star Industries, Inc.

The trustees of the District No. 15 Machinists’ Pension Fund, acting as plaintiffs, initiated this action against Bright Star Industries, Inc. seeking to compel overdue contributions to the fund under ERISA and LMRA. Bright Star moved to dismiss, contending that jurisdiction over the matter was exclusively with the National Labor Relations Board due to previous unfair labor practice proceedings. The court, presided over by District Judge Glasser, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, asserting its concurrent jurisdiction with the NLRB in cases involving both NLRA violations and breaches of collective bargaining agreements, particularly where a valid contract is still in effect. The court also denied Bright Star's request for costs and attorney's fees.

ERISALMRANLRAPension FundCollective Bargaining AgreementUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionMotion to DismissPreemptionConcurrent Jurisdiction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. North-Star Construction Co.

Plaintiff was injured at a Noco Service Station while removing anchor plates from a masonry wall. He was on a scaffold, and the plywood platform cracked, causing his foot to go through, leading to back and right leg injuries for which he received workers' compensation. Plaintiff sued North-Star Construction Company, Inc. and Noco defendants for negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to North-Star, ruling plaintiff was a special employee, and erred in dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the Noco defendants. The appellate court modified the order, granting plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment against the Noco defendants on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss that claim.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawScaffold AccidentSpecial EmployeeSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityConstruction SiteStatutory ViolationNew York Law
References
10
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04008 [150 AD3d 1505]
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Claim of Jie Cao v. Five Star Travel of NY Inc.

Norman Lan Chen, a bus driver, was involved in a 2007 bus accident. He successfully applied for workers' compensation benefits, and the Workers' Compensation Board found Five Star Travel of NY Inc. (his employer) to be uninsured and liable for awards. A settlement agreement was approved by the Board in October 2011. In May 2015, Five Star Travel of NY Inc. sought to reopen the claim and revisit the settlement approval, but the Board denied the application. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that no material new evidence was presented and the application was untimely. The court also held that the Board was correct in declining to revisit the previously approved Workers' Compensation Law § 32 settlement agreement.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppealClaim ReopeningSettlement AgreementUninsured EmployerTimelinessJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionBus Accident
References
6
Case No. ADJ7003833
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

MARTHA AGUIRE vs. TWO STAR PERSONNEL

This case involves a lien claimant who was sanctioned $2,500 for a pattern of filing frivolous Declarations of Readiness to Proceed. The lien claimant petitioned for reconsideration, arguing it did not receive timely notice of the sanction and had withdrawn erroneous filings. While the petition had procedural defects, the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the sanction order, and returned the matter to the trial level. This is due to an upcoming hearing on a motion to consolidate thousands of similar cases, potentially leading to a global resolution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionNotice of Intention to Issue SanctionsDeclarations of Readiness to ProceedFrivolousUnverified PetitionReport and RecommendationDismissal
References
1
Case No. ADJ7003833, et al.
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

MARTHA AGUIRE, et al. vs. TWO STAR PERSONNEL, administered by SEDGWICK CMS, ; et al.

This order corrects clerical errors in a prior Board decision concerning a sanction against lien claimant Safety Works, Inc. The errors involved omitting a critical attachment listing cases for reconsideration and failing to include the firm Floyd, Skeren and Kelly on the service list. The Board is correcting these errors by adding the firm to the service list and attaching the missing document. This ensures all parties are properly notified and that the prior decision accurately reflects the proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorsPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ SanctionLien ClaimantService ListInterlineationDecision After ReconsiderationSafety WorksInc.
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08899
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Matter of Peterec-Tolino v. Five Star Elec. Corp.

John Peterec-Tolino, an electrician, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found his employment termination was not in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120. Peterec-Tolino alleged discrimination by his employer, Five Star Electric Corp., claiming he was fired in January 2015 due to filing accident/incident reports for a December 2014 knee injury. The Board affirmed the disallowance of the discrimination claim, concluding that the termination was a result of legitimate business actions, specifically a furlough replacement program and issues with Peterec-Tolino's work performance. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, finding that Peterec-Tolino failed to establish a causal nexus between his compensation activities and his termination, and that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court emphasized its limited power to reweigh conflicting proof or substitute its judgment for that of the Board.

Workers' Compensation Law § 120 ViolationRetaliatory Discharge ClaimEmployment DiscriminationBurden of Proof in Discrimination CasesCausal Nexus RequirementLegitimate Business Reasons for TerminationFurlough Replacement ProgramPoor Work PerformanceAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial Evidence Standard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1964

United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Star Expansion Industries, Inc.

This case concerns a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) against Star Expansion Industries, Inc. and Local #1968, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). UE, newly certified as the bargaining agent, sought to displace IBEW in an ongoing arbitration concerning the discharge of employee Albert E. Dinges, which IBEW had commenced under its prior collective bargaining agreement. The court denied the injunction, affirming the arbitrator's decision that IBEW, as the union that initiated the grievance under its contract, retained the right to conclude the arbitration despite its decertification and contract expiration. The ruling emphasized the contractual nature of arbitration and the federal policy promoting industrial peace by allowing established proceedings to continue.

Collective BargainingUnion RepresentationArbitrationInjunctive ReliefDecertificationGrievanceLabor DisputeContractual ObligationFederal PolicyIndustrial Peace
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,790 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