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. E2016-01075-COA-R3-CV-FILED-NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2016

Richard Michelhaugh v. Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC

This case concerns an appeal by employees Richard Michelhaugh and John Williams against Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC (CNS) over disputed vacation benefits. Plaintiffs alleged CNS unlawfully deprived them of vacation time earned in 2014 by implementing a new policy on December 11, 2014, effective January 1, 2015, which retroactively eliminated their accrued vacation. The Circuit Court for Anderson County initially granted CNS's motion to dismiss, concluding the vacation plan was not a contract and CNS had the right to change policies. However, the Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville reversed this decision, ruling that while the plan itself was not an employment contract, employees could not be divested of compensation (vacation benefits) already earned under the previous policy. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that employers cannot retroactively reduce earned compensation.

Vacation benefits disputeEmployment policy changeMotion to dismiss appealContractual obligationsEmployee compensationRetroactive policy alterationBreach of contract allegationsFiduciary duty claimGood faith and fair dealingAppellate review of dismissal
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2000

Levy v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

The petitioner, an Administrative Law Judge for the Workers' Compensation Board, appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the award. The arbitration found that the petitioner's behavior toward an attorney violated WCB policy and the Code of Judicial Conduct. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the arbitrator's award was rational, did not violate public policy, and was not in excess of authority. The court also held that the arbitrator properly considered the petitioner's entire employment record in determining the penalty, as allowed by the collective bargaining agreement.

Arbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Administrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardCode of Judicial ConductMisconductCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewAffirmed Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2009

New York Racing Ass'n v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The petitioner sought to vacate an arbitration award dated June 12, 2009, claiming it violated public policy. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the petition, confirmed the award, and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the order was affirmed. The court determined that neither Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 206 (4) and (5) absolutely prohibited the arbitrator's decision, nor did the award itself violate these laws, applying a two-prong public policy test. The court also noted that a previously agreed deferred prosecution agreement had expired and the respondent was not a party to it.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardRacing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding LawDeferred Prosecution AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewNassau CountySupreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2006

County of Westchester v. Doyle

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, that had denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award. The original order confirmed the award and directed interest on compensation for William Leverance's out-of-title work to be calculated from August 20, 2004. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial to vacate the arbitration award, determining that the award did not violate public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator's authority. However, the order was modified to direct that interest on the award be calculated from September 9, 2005, the date of the award, instead of August 20, 2004. All other contentions raised by the appellant were found to be without merit.

arbitrationawardvacaturCPLR Article 75out-of-title workinterest calculationappellate reviewjudicial modificationWestchester Countypublic policy
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local Union 1566, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. appealed an order dated December 18, 1985, from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which had granted the petitioner union's application to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration stemmed from the employer's disability payment procedure requiring employees to submit claims for statutory benefits to qualify for sick-leave payments, a policy the union grieved. The arbitration board denied the grievance, interpreting the collective bargaining agreement to support the employer's procedure. However, the Supreme Court vacated the award, finding the board exceeded its authority by modifying the contract. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the arbitration board indeed exceeded its expressly limited powers by effectively rewriting the collective bargaining agreement, which contained no provision requiring employees to submit statutory disability claims for sick-leave benefits.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSick Leave BenefitsDisability Benefits LawVacatur of Arbitration AwardArbitrator AuthorityContract InterpretationNew York LawAppellate ProcedureEmployer Policy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fagnani v. American Home Assurance Co.

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance policy's exclusionary clause. Plaintiffs' decedents, Stephen Fagnani and Brandon Young, were killed in a helicopter crash while working for ODECO. The defendant insurance carrier disclaimed liability, citing a policy exclusion for 'Flying in any Rotocraft being used for transportation of Oil Rig Crews to and from such rigs.' Special Term granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, interpreting ambiguities against the insurer. Justice Titone, however, dissents, arguing that both sides presented extrinsic evidence, which creates a question of fact regarding the meaning of 'oil rig' that necessitates a trial. He recommends reversing the judgment, vacating the order, and remitting the matter for trial.

Insurance PolicyExclusionary ClauseSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceAmbiguityHelicopter CrashAccidental DeathOil Rig CrewsAppellate Dissent
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aftor v. Geico Insurance

A petitioner, injured as a minor in an accident with an uninsured vehicle, sought arbitration with Geico Insurance Company under a supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) endorsement after securing a default judgment of $25,000 against the uninsured parties. The arbitrator awarded the petitioner $10,000. The petitioner then sought to vacate the arbitration award in Supreme Court, Kings County, arguing that Geico was obligated to pay the full $25,000 civil judgment. The Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the award. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the petition, and reinstating and confirming the $10,000 arbitration award, emphasizing the limited judicial review of arbitration awards unless specific grounds for vacatur (such as violating public policy or exceeding power) are met.

Arbitration LawInsurance LawUninsured MotoristSUM CoverageJudicial ReviewArbitration Award VacaturAppellate PracticeCivil ProcedureContract InterpretationBodily Injury Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dingee v. County of Dutchess

The petitioner, a correction officer for Dutchess County, sought benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c after sustaining injuries when his chair collapsed. An arbitrator denied these benefits, ruling that the injuries did not arise from heightened risks specific to his employment. The petitioner then sought to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it was contrary to public policy. The Supreme Court denied the petition, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal, as the petitioner failed to identify any public policy precluding the arbitrator’s determination and the decision was consistent with existing decisional authority.

Arbitration awardGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cPublic policyCorrection officerWorkplace injuryDutchess CountyCPLR article 75Benefits denialJudicial interventionCollective bargaining agreement
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor Industrial Board of Appeals

The petitioner challenged the Board's determination to award 1987 vacation benefits to former employees terminated in late 1986, arguing against the application of the Allentown, Pennsylvania plant's vacation policy and its interpretation. The court found ample evidence to support applying the Allentown policy, but annulled the Board's determination in part due to an erroneous interpretation of the policy's eligibility requirement for continuous service as of December 31. Specifically, the Board's award of 1987 vacation benefits to workers terminated prior to December 31, 1986, was annulled, while the petitioner conceded its obligation for two workers terminated on December 31. The determination was unanimously modified and confirmed in part, and annulled in part.

Vacation BenefitsEmployee TerminationPolicy InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate DivisionEligibilityContinuous ServiceLabor LawNew York
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Steuben

CSEA appealed an order that denied confirmation of an arbitrator's award and granted the County's cross-petition to vacate it. The dispute stemmed from a public employment contract concerning mileage reimbursement between CSEA and the County. The County changed its mileage policy, prompting CSEA to file a grievance, arguing that a 'past practice' had effectively modified the contract's terms. The arbitrator agreed with CSEA, but the Special Term vacated the award, ruling that the contract's language on mileage reimbursement was clear and unambiguous, rendering any past practice irrelevant. The appellate court affirmed the Special Term's decision, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by relying on matters outside the explicit contractual agreement, thereby creating a new contract for the parties.

ArbitrationPublic Employment ContractMileage ReimbursementPast PracticeContract InterpretationArbitrator's PowerVacatur of AwardCPLR Article 75Collective Bargaining AgreementUnambiguous Contract Terms
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,190 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