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

Fraternal Order of Police, National Labor Council, USPS No. 2 v. United States Postal Service

The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and 13 individual Postal Police Officers sued the United States Postal Service and its employees, alleging violations of federal and state law, as well as their employment contract. Plaintiffs challenged restrictions on their law enforcement authority, citing 40 U.S.C. § 318, and also claimed illegal locker searches under the Fourth Amendment and New York law. The defendants sought dismissal, primarily arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the claims. It ruled that Section 318 does not confer a private right of action and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the grievance procedures outlined in their collective bargaining agreement and the Postal Reorganization Act for their search and contract-related claims.

Labor LawPostal ServicePolice PowersFourth AmendmentLocker SearchCollective Bargaining AgreementExhaustion of RemediesPrivate Right of ActionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levine v. United Parcel Service

A claimant, employed by United Parcel Service, suffered stress and mental depression on May 13, 1982, allegedly due to supervisor harassment, which the Workers' Compensation Board ruled an accidental injury. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the facts of the incident and the medical causation, especially given the claimant's preexisting anxiety. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing its prerogative to assess witness credibility and weigh conflicting medical evidence. The Board's findings, based on the claimant's testimony and psychiatrist's report, were deemed supported by substantial evidence. The decision affirmed the compensability of mental injury precipitated by psychic trauma under the Workers' Compensation Law.

Mental InjuryPsychic TraumaHarassmentSupervisor ConductAccidental InjuryPreexisting ConditionCredibility of WitnessesMedical EvidencePosttraumatic Stress DisorderAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Engler v. United Parcel Service

Claimant, a delivery driver for United Parcel Service, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2001, alleging interstitial pulmonary fibrosis due to exposure to dust and irritants. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found he suffered an occupational disease and permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, but the Court reversed in 2003, remitting the case to consider accidental injury. In an amended decision, the Board ruled claimant sustained an accidental injury from airborne irritants. The employer and carrier appealed again. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's condition arose from unusual environmental factors within his delivery vehicle, consistent with medical opinions linking his lung disease to mixed dust exposure at work.

Interstitial Pulmonary FibrosisOccupational ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausally Related InjuryDelivery Vehicle EnvironmentAirborne IrritantsMedical TestimonyBiopsy FindingsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohertus Trading Co. v. United Parcel Service Co.

Plaintiff Mohertus Trading Company sued defendant United Parcel Service (UPS) for $10,497, alleging loss of goods during shipping. Mohertus claims its agent mistakenly undervalued the goods at $6,000 instead of $16,000 due to an error by a UPS agent during repackaging. UPS reimbursed Mohertus $6,000, asserting full satisfaction of their contract. Mohertus seeks to recover the full $16,000, implicitly asking the court to reform the contract based on mutual mistake. The court, noting the case falls under the Carmack Amendment, found that Mohertus raised a genuine issue of fact regarding mutual mistake, making a trial necessary to determine the parties' intent and the reasonableness of the agent's reliance. Consequently, UPS's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Contract DisputeMutual MistakeSummary Judgment MotionCarrier LiabilityCarmack AmendmentInterstate ShipmentGoods LostShipping InsuranceValuation DisputeContract Reformation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Krull v. United States

Michael Krull, an employee of JJJ Express Mail, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained on October 17, 2007, while delivering mail to the Irving Post Office. Krull alleged negligence by the United States Postal Service (USPS) after renovations to the post office's rear door created a safety hazard. The new outward-opening door obstructed a steel plate on a hoist lift, forcing Krull to manually lift the heavy plate multiple times daily, which allegedly caused a lower back injury. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing Krull could not establish negligence and that his injury resulted from an ordinary hazard of employment. The court denied the government's motion, finding that lifting the steel plate was not part of Krull's regular duties and that USPS's alteration prevented him from performing his work as intended, thus raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding negligence.

Federal Tort Claims ActNegligenceSummary JudgmentLandowner DutyForeseeabilityPersonal InjuryWorkplace InjuryPostal ServiceHoist LiftDoor Renovation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meehan v. United States Postal Service

Plaintiff James Meehan, Administrator of Michael J. Meehan's estate, initiated an action against the U.S. Postal Service, U.S.A., and U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the Federal Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLI). He alleged that his son, Michael J. Meehan, was wrongfully denied free life insurance, despite having signed a waiver during his employment. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust the mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. The court concurred with the defendants, ruling that the claim constituted a breach of the collective bargaining agreement, thereby necessitating the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to judicial review. Additionally, the court noted that the action would have been time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations and that Meehan had properly waived his life insurance.

Federal Group Life Insurance ActSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProceduresArbitrationExhaustion of Administrative RemediesStatute of LimitationsLife Insurance Waiver
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Frank

James Long, representing himself, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against the United States Postal Service and Postmaster General Anthony M. Frank, alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) due to his 1982 employment termination. He sought overtime back pay and compensation for legal services. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that Long's claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, citing a prior Federal Circuit decision that affirmed MSPB rulings against him on attorney fees and overtime pay enforcement. The court acknowledged the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction over MSPB appeals but clarified that it lacked jurisdiction over ADEA discrimination claims. Consequently, the court denied the government's summary judgment motion regarding the ADEA-based overtime back pay claim, allowing it to proceed, but granted summary judgment on the claim for direct payment of attorney fees, finding it precluded by the Federal Circuit's prior ruling.

Age DiscriminationADEARes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionMSPB AppealsOvertime PayAttorney FeesFederal Employees
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brotman v. United States

The Brotmans sued the United States Government and the Statue of Liberty Ellis Island Foundation, Inc. for personal injury, alleging insufficient lighting and lack of warning signs caused Mrs. Brotman's fall on a stairway. The Government moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, invoking the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The court examined whether the National Park Service's (NPS) decisions regarding lighting design and warning signs were discretionary and based on policy considerations, balancing safety with historic preservation goals. Concluding that NPS's decisions involved policy judgments to preserve the monument's historic character, the court granted the Government's motion to dismiss. As a result, all claims against both the Government and the Foundation were dismissed.

Federal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionHistoric PreservationNational Park ServiceStatue of LibertyPremises LiabilityGovernmental ImmunityNegligence Claim
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kwitek v. United States Postal Service

Edward Kwitek, a driver for Midwest Transport, Inc., sued the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained while loading mail at a post office, alleging negligence by USPS employees. The government moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that Kwitek was an independent contractor and his injury resulted from a discretionary function, thereby making the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity inapplicable. The court denied the government's motion. It ruled that the independent contractor exception did not apply because the alleged negligence was on the part of USPS employees failing to perform their regular duties. Furthermore, the discretionary function exception was also inapplicable, as the alleged conduct was not policy-driven but rather a failure to follow established protocol. The case was then referred for a settlement conference.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionIndependent Contractor ExceptionDiscretionary Function ExceptionNegligenceUnited States Postal ServicePersonal InjuryLoading Dock InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 8,384 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