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

Devon Knitwear Co. v. Levinson

The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike an affirmative defense presented by the defendant labor union. The union argued that the plaintiffs came to court with 'unclean hands' due to their alleged refusal to bargain collectively, constituting an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiffs contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over unfair labor practices, as this power is exclusively vested in the National Labor Relations Board. The court clarified that while the NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to *prevent* unfair labor practices, the court retains its inherent equitable power to deny relief to a party with 'unclean hands'. Therefore, the court found the union's defense legally sufficient and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike.

EquityInjunctionUnclean HandsNational Labor Relations ActLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionAffirmative DefenseMotion to StrikeCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2001

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.

Proctor & Gamble Company (P&G), a worldwide distributor of consumer products, sued numerous parties including Quality King Distributors, Inc., Omnisource International, Inc., and Neal Rose, alleging they were involved in mixing, bottling, selling, and distributing counterfeit Head & Shoulders shampoo, in violation of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act. P&G moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for trademark infringement. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, arguing P&G had unclean hands, abandoned its trademark rights, and that Neal Rose lacked individual liability. The court granted P&G's motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants used a counterfeit of P&G's trademark in commerce, which created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court denied the defendants' cross-motions, concluding that the unclean hands defense was inapplicable, P&G had not abandoned its trademark, and there was sufficient evidence for Rose's personal liability.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActCounterfeit GoodsSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DefenseTrademark AbandonmentCorporate Officer LiabilityHead & ShouldersConsumer ConfusionInterstate Commerce
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Uto v. Job Site Services Inc.

Plaintiffs Paulino Uto, Jose Edwin Lopez, and Jose Aas, former employees of Job Site Services Inc. (JSS), filed a collective action against JSS and its owner, John O'Shea. They allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, claiming unpaid overtime, partial payment for hours worked, and unpaid minimum wage. The plaintiffs sought a protective order against defendants' discovery requests for social security numbers and income tax returns, arguing irrelevance and potential prejudice regarding their immigration status. Defendants contended the information was necessary for an "unclean hands" defense, implying the plaintiffs were involved in a tax evasion scheme. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling that immigration status and social security numbers are generally undiscoverable in FLSA cases due to irrelevance and the risk of intimidation or deportation. Furthermore, the court determined that tax returns were not relevant and lacked a compelling need for disclosure, and the "unclean hands" defense was inapplicable as the plaintiffs' claims were legal, not equitable.

Protective OrderDiscovery DisputeImmigration StatusFair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawUnclean Hands DefenseSocial Security NumbersIncome Tax ReturnsWage and Hour
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Feliciano v. New York City Health & Hospitals Co.

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled the left hand claim time-barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28 and established August 28, 2006, as the disability date for the right hand. On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the right hand's disability date but, on its own motion, set December 2003 as the disability date for the left hand, thereby confirming the left hand claim was untimely. The claimant appealed, arguing against two disability dates for a single claim. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported treating the hand injuries as discrete occupational diseases with separate disablement dates and upheld the time-bar for the left hand claim.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeTime-barred ClaimDate of DisablementBilateral InjuriesAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial ReviewStatute of Limitations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amalgamated Service & Allied Industries Joint Board v. Supreme Hand Laundry, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a joint board representing workers, sued several laundry businesses for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, alleging that the defendants constituted a single employer and failed to provide proper notice of termination. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment against the 'Karten defendants' (Supreme Hand Laundry, Inc. and related entities) due to their failure to secure legal representation after their original counsel was disqualified. The court also denied defendant 2350 Fifth Avenue Corp.'s belated motion to amend its answer to assert a 'good faith' defense under the WARN Act, citing undue delay, potential prejudice to plaintiffs, and futility. Final judgment was entered against the Karten defendants for over $600,000, including attorneys' fees, and other defendants were dismissed by agreement or order.

WARN ActDefault JudgmentRule 54(b) CertificationGood Faith DefenseCorporate VeilAttorney DisqualificationStatutory DamagesBack PayMass LayoffPlant Closing
References
9
Case No. ADJ2135528 (VNO 0550980)
Regular
May 22, 2015

NUREN KARTAL vs. THREE HANDS CORPORATION, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendants, Three Hands Corporation and Oak River Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed the petition. This dismissal is based on the WCJ's report, which found the petition moot because the WCJ issued a corrected award superseding the original one. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning and dismissed the reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportmootSecond Amended Supplemental FindingsFirst Amended Joint FindingsApplicantDefendantInsurance CompanyAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ3074171 (MON 0359277)
Regular
May 01, 2014

RAMIRO PORRAS vs. SODEXHO, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration for a lien claimant seeking additional payment for translation services and attorney fees. The WCAB affirmed the original decision, finding the lien claimant was already adequately compensated and not entitled to further payment or attorney fees due to inflated billings and "unclean hands." Reconsideration was granted solely to correct a typographical error in the date referenced in a finding of fact.

Lien claimantTranslation servicesMediated settlementAccord and satisfactionAttorney feesLabor Code section 5813Unclean handsPetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardTypographical error
References
0
Case No. ADJ8015465
Regular
Jun 20, 2016

WILLIAM McFARLAND vs. QUICK RESPONSE TOP DRAWER CONSTRUCTION, INC.; EVEREST

In this case, defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision allowing Pacific Hospital's lien for $58,291.00 related to an industrial injury. Defendant argued the WCJ erred by not allowing defenses of fraud and unclean hands, and that the hospital lacked credible evidence for the claimed amount. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. The WCJ found that the defenses were not timely raised, and the evidence supported the lien amount.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLienCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryMaster CraftsmanThird-Party Civil ActionFraudUnclean Hands
References
0
Case No. ADJ4615548 (VNO 0497034) ADJ1524834 (VNO 0497035)
Regular
Feb 14, 2011

JULIA DE CASAS vs. GRIMWAY ENTERPRISES

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration after their $\$8,134.77$ medical treatment lien was disallowed by the WCJ for untimeliness. The lien was filed on February 8, 2010, for treatment rendered between June 2004 and February 2005, well after the August 3, 2006, Order Approving Compromise and Release and exceeding statutory filing deadlines. The claimant argued the lien was enforceable once the defendant was aware of the services and that the defendant had "unclean hands" for failing to disclose pending charges. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the lien claim was time-barred per Labor Code section 4903.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGrimway EnterprisesTristar Risk ManagementEMSI Physicians NetworkTomas RiosAlpha Billing & CollectionsRicardo MuñozPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantRulings Findings of Fact & Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Baker v. Clinton County

A correction officer, injured on duty, received General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. After being cleared for light duty, the Clinton County Sheriff denied his return and initiated disciplinary charges alleging false injury reports, subsequently suspending his benefits without a pretermination evidentiary hearing. The officer filed a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, challenging the termination of benefits without due process. The Supreme Court granted his petition, ordering the restoration of withheld benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the respondents' "unclean hands" defense and upholding the necessity of due process before benefit termination.

General Municipal Law § 207-c BenefitsCivil Service Law § 75Due ProcessPretermination HearingCorrection OfficerDisciplinary ChargesBenefit SuspensionUnclean Hands DoctrineCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 379 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