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

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pasqualini v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund

This case involves principals of Zodiac Industries, Inc. (Carl, Ann, Frank Pasqualini, and Sarah Lido) who sued the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, the International, and Local 38 over pension service credits. The plaintiffs sought fifteen years of past service credit, which they claimed was promised to them to induce Zodiac to sign a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Fund denied these credits, citing plan rules. The Court, however, found that 'extraordinary circumstances' warranted applying the principle of estoppel against the Fund. The court ruled in favor of the four owner-members, declaring them entitled to fifteen years of past service credit and ordering the Fund to reconsider their pension applications. Claims brought by other employees and against the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and Local 38 were dismissed.

ERISAPension BenefitsPast Service CreditEstoppelCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion OrganizingContract EnforcementEmployee Benefit PlanFiduciary DutyDistrict Court
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08227
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Matter of Kelly v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

In 2006, claimant Grace Kelly established a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) repeatedly sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, which was denied by Workers' Compensation Law Judges. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these denials and assessed $500 penalties against both SIF and its counsel, Walsh and Hacker, for filing an application for review without reasonable grounds. Walsh and Hacker appealed the penalty imposed against them to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division found insufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that Walsh and Hacker's application lacked reasonable grounds, and therefore reversed the penalty against them, modifying and affirming the Board's decision.

PenaltiesAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAttorney SanctionsAdministrative LawBoard DecisionJudiciary Law § 431
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Saratoga Skydiving Adventures v. Workers' Compensation Board

Saratoga Skydiving Adventures appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision upholding a stop-work order. The initial order was issued after an investigation revealed the company lacked workers' compensation coverage, with owner Bob Rawlins asserting his workers were independent contractors. Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied Saratoga Skydiving's application to lift the order. The appellate court affirmed this denial, determining that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employer-employee relationship for pilots and jump instructors, given their integral role in the business and Rawlins' control over their work. Consequently, Saratoga Skydiving was required to maintain workers' compensation coverage for these individuals.

Workers' CompensationStop-Work OrderEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSkydiving BusinessHazardous EmploymentUninsured Employers’ FundAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLabor Law
References
7
Case No. 532391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Richman v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Claimant, Rebecca Richman, appealed three decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding her claim for a work-related right shoulder injury. She alleged a fall at work on January 19, 2018, but did not seek medical treatment for 19 months. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Board reversed, finding that Richman failed to submit sufficient, credible medical evidence to demonstrate a causally-related injury and denied her claim. The Board subsequently denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's finding of no causally-related injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation ClaimCausation (Medical)Shoulder InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyBoard ReversalAppellate Division ReviewBurden of ProofCredibility of EvidenceOsteoarthritis DiagnosisDelayed Medical Treatment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1981

Blyer v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

The National Labor Relations Board sought a preliminary injunction against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear, and Allied Workers’ Union, International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union (ILG) for alleged unfair labor practices under NLRA Section 8(b)(4)(D), related to picketing for a jobber’s agreement. The court examined the applicability of the garment-industry proviso in NLRA Section 8(e) to the alleged work-assignment dispute. It found that the Board's theory was novel and lacked sufficient factual findings. Considering factors like the ILG's initial lawful picketing, the employer's non-innocent status, and the desire to preserve the status quo, the court denied the injunction, concluding it would be inequitable and improper.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticePreliminary InjunctionNLRAGarment Industry ProvisoWork Assignment DisputeJobber's AgreementPicketingSecondary BoycottGarment Union
References
6
Case No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2000

Gallagher v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF ELEC. WORKERS

Plaintiff Michael Gallagher sued several entities, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and its President J.J. Barry, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation through IBEW Local Union No. 43's hiring hall. Gallagher claimed the collective bargaining agreement facilitated discrimination against older workers and that Local 43 was an agent of the International defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name the International defendants in his EEOC charge, thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies and that no identity of interest existed between the named and unnamed parties. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the International defendants due to Gallagher's failure to file an administrative complaint against them and the lack of an agency relationship or ratification of discriminatory acts. Furthermore, the court found the claims to be time-barred under both state and federal statutes of limitations.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionCollective Bargaining AgreementEEOCNYSDHRExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Judgment on PleadingsStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. CA 15-02074
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2016

RICCELLI ENTERPRISES, INC. v. STATE OF NEW YORK WORKERS' COMPENSA

The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed an order from Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which found the State of New York Workers' Compensation Board (Board) in civil contempt. The Board had violated a prior stay order that prohibited it from taking further action against Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., et al. (petitioners-plaintiffs-respondents) concerning deficit assessments under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Despite the stay, the Board attempted to consolidate a related action and change venue, actions which the court deemed prejudiced the petitioners. The appellate court upheld the finding of civil contempt under Judiciary Law § 753, concluding that the stay order was clear and explicit, and the Board's actions constituted a direct violation.

Civil ContemptStay Order ViolationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewJudiciary LawCourt Order EnforcementConsolidation MotionVenue TransferPrejudiceNew York State Courts
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nuara v. State of New York Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners, two terminated group self-insured trusts (GSITs), challenged monetary assessments levied against them by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board and its chairman. The assessments were imposed pursuant to various sections of the Workers’ Compensation Law, utilizing a "pure premium calculation" method established by 2007 amendments. The court considered new 2008 legislation that further amended the calculation method for ceased self-insurers but declined to apply it retroactively. Ultimately, the court found the Board's interpretation of "the preceding year" in its pure premium calculation for terminated GSITs to be unreasonable and contrary to the clear statutory language. Consequently, the levied assessments were annulled and vacated.

Group Self-Insured TrustsMonetary AssessmentsStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationPure Premium CalculationAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78Legislative IntentStatutory ConstructionSelf-Insurance Liabilities
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1993

Empire Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Board

Empire Insurance Company denied Hugh Wofsy's no-fault benefits claim, alleging he was a Dial-a-Car, Inc. employee requiring Workers' Compensation. An Administrative Law Judge later found Wofsy an independent contractor, denying him Workers' Compensation. Empire sought to reopen the Workers' Compensation claim to participate, which the Board denied. Empire then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, where the IAS Court allowed the reopening and ordered Empire to pay Wofsy, with potential reimbursement. The Appellate Division subsequently reversed this judgment, dismissing Empire's petition, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 23 vests exclusive appeal jurisdiction with the Third Department and precludes article 78 proceedings for reviewing Board decisions' substance.

No-fault insuranceIndependent contractor disputeEmployee status determinationCPLR Article 78 proceedingAppellate Division jurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Law § 23Judicial review of administrative decisionsInsurance coverage disputeAdministrative Law Judge rulingReimbursement claim
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 22,539 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