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. In re U.S. Air Duct Corporation
Regular Panel Decision

Mazur v. U. S. Air Duct Corp. (In Re U. S. Air Duct Corp.)

The case involves the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 58 (the Association) seeking to recover fringe benefits and wage supplement contributions from U.S. Air Duct Corporation (the Debtor) and its president, Franklin E. Bean (the Non-Debtor). The Association initiated an action in New York Supreme Court, which was subsequently stayed when the Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Non-Debtor removed the state-court proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court, prompting the Association to move for its remand. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Association's motion, asserting jurisdiction over the claim against the Non-Debtor based on its relation to the Title 11 case and the joint and several liability under New York Labor Law Section 198-c. The court also affirmed the permissibility of removal by "any party" under 28 U.S.C. 1478(a).

BankruptcyChapter 7RemovalRemandJurisdictionLabor LawFringe BenefitsWage SupplementsCorporate Officer LiabilityJoint and Several Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

Royal Park Investments SA/NV sued U.S. Bank National Association regarding residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). U.S. Bank moved to dismiss the action or disqualify Royal Park as class representative due to Royal Park's failure to produce documents from its assignors. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, found Royal Park's non-compliance willful but denied U.S. Bank's motion for sanctions and disqualification. The court reasoned that U.S. Bank had not yet demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant such severe sanctions, indicating that dismissal would be 'unnecessarily draconian'. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing U.S. Bank to renew its application if prejudice could be shown.

Discovery SanctionsWillfulnessPrejudiceClass ActionRMBS LitigationTrust Indenture ActBreach of ContractBreach of TrustAssignor DocumentsStanding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carrillo v. National Council of the Churches of the Christ in U.S.A.

Plaintiff Emilio F. Carrillo, Jr. was terminated from his role as Director of Human Resources at the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (NCC) following an $8 million investment loss from the NCC Health Insurance Program for Retirees. He alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) due to the timing of his termination coinciding with medical leave and also claimed defamation under New York state law by defendant Campbell regarding his role in the losses. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the FMLA claim, ruling that Carrillo, an at-will employee, was slated for termination prior to his leave, and the FMLA does not grant greater rights than otherwise entitled. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state defamation claim, dismissing it.

FMLAwrongful terminationdefamationat-will employmentinvestment lossesmedical leavesummary judgmentsupplemental jurisdictionfederal claimstate law claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U. S. Pillow Corp. v. McLeod

The U. S. Pillow Corporation (plaintiff) initiated legal action to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election involving its employees, as petitioned by Local 140. Although the election proceeded, the ballots were impounded. The court considered three motions: Local 140's request for intervention, U. S. Pillow's plea for an injunction to continue ballot impoundment, and the Regional Director's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted Local 140's intervention. The core of U. S. Pillow's argument centered on alleged violations of its constitutional rights and administrative due process by the NLRB's decision to permit a single-employer unit election despite existing multi-employer agreements. The court, however, deemed the plaintiff's constitutional claims to be "transparently frivolous" and found no merit in any of its contentions. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, and the plaintiff's request for an injunction pendente lite was denied.

Labor RelationsNLRBRepresentation ElectionJudicial ReviewInjunctionCollective BargainingMulti-employer UnitConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFirst Amendment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2011

Severstal U.S. Holdings, LLC v. RG Steel, LLC

Plaintiffs Severstal U.S. Holdings, LLC and Severstal U.S. Holdings II, Inc. initiated a declaratory judgment action against RG Steel to prevent arbitration regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA). RG Steel, in response, sought to compel arbitration, appoint an arbitrator, and stay the plaintiffs' action, arguing that disputes over purchase price adjustments related to Net Working Capital calculations were arbitrable. The core dispute centered on whether 'Contested Adjustments' should be resolved through the SPA's arbitration clause, particularly those concerning GAAP consistency, or if they constituted claims for breach of representation and warranty, falling under indemnification. The court, referencing the Federal Arbitration Act's strong policy favoring arbitration, determined that the contested adjustments were indeed arbitrable, distinguishing prior cases cited by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court granted RG Steel's motion, compelling arbitration for all contested adjustments and staying the declaratory judgment action commenced by Severstal.

Arbitration AgreementStock Purchase AgreementGAAPNet Working CapitalDeclaratory JudgmentStay of ActionFederal Arbitration ActPurchase Price AdjustmentIndemnificationContract Interpretation
References
35
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Airlines Pilots Ass'n v. U.S. Airways, Inc.

The U.S. Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) filed an action against U.S. Airways for alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), including interference with collective bargaining rights, failure to maintain the status quo, bad faith bargaining, and failure to settle disputes. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, finding that USAPA failed to sufficiently plead a claim for bad faith bargaining and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The court categorized USAPA's allegations regarding grievance procedures, arbitration, and anti-union animus as "minor disputes" under the RLA, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of a system adjustment board, rather than federal courts. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, with most counts dismissed with prejudice.

Railway Labor ActCollective BargainingBad Faith BargainingMajor DisputesMinor DisputesSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Status Quo
References
47
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02919 [217 AD3d 1036]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

Matter of Gonzalez v. Chester U.F.S.D.

Claimant Lisa Gonzalez, who suffered a work-related ankle and knee injury in 2006, applied for additional workers' compensation benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (v) after exhausting her schedule loss of use awards. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her application, finding she was ineligible because she failed to search for employment, thus not demonstrating that her impaired wage-earning capacity was solely due to her established injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board's factual determination was supported by substantial evidence, including medical opinions that claimant was able to work with restrictions and her own testimony that she viewed herself as retired and had not applied for jobs. The court reiterated that the Board's inquiry is not limited to medical evidence and can consider other factors.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseWage Earning CapacityEligibility for BenefitsEmployment SearchFactual DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewRight Ankle InjuryRight Knee Injury
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06838
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Matter of Santangelo v. Seaford U.F.S.D.

Lawrence Santangelo, classified with a permanent total disability following a 2007 work-related injury, had his workers' compensation case reopened by the carrier in 2016. The carrier alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making false statements about his physical condition. Surveillance videos contradicted Santangelo's claims of constant pain and needing assistive devices, showing him performing strenuous activities without limitations. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found a violation and disqualified him from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed these decisions, concluding that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent MisrepresentationSurveillance Video EvidencePermanent Total DisabilityWage Replacement BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical RecordsCredibility DeterminationVocational Fraud
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gadley v. U.S. Sugar Co.

This dissenting opinion addresses a case where the plaintiff, a replacement worker provided by EGW, sought action against U.S. Sugar, despite EGW paying his salary and benefits, including workers’ compensation. The dissent argues that the plaintiff should be considered a special employee of U.S. Sugar due to the latter's sole control and direction over his work. Citing relevant case law, the dissenting judges assert that worker’s compensation benefits constitute the exclusive remedy, thus barring the plaintiff’s action. They also emphasize the validity of an affidavit from James Bonerb, a U.S. Sugar vice-president, in supporting their position. Consequently, the dissent concludes that U.S. Sugar’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

Special Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Exclusive RemedyControl and Direction of WorkDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityAgency WorkersEvidentiary ValueAffidavit Evidence
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,352 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