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

Kletter v. Fleming

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim alleging a violation of Labor Law article 6. The defendant, a dentist, worked for the plaintiff under a contract and, after termination, filed counterclaims for nonpayment and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law counterclaim and precluded the defendant from presenting proof for corrective work payment. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Labor Law article 6 was inapplicable as the claim was a common-law contractual remuneration claim and not a substantive violation. It also upheld the preclusion regarding payment for corrective work, citing the clear terms of the contract and the parol evidence rule, which barred extrinsic evidence of additional payment terms.

breach of contractlabor law violationwage disputecontractual remunerationparol evidence rulesummary judgmentpreclusion motionappellate reviewdentist employmentemployer-employee dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2001

Claim of Losurdo v. Asbestos Free, Inc.

The case involves a claimant appealing a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board ruled that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose prior left and right knee injuries to physicians and under oath, leading to disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. Although a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found no fraud, the Board reversed this determination on administrative appeal, concluding the claimant knowingly made false statements. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, emphasizing the Board's authority as the sole arbiter of witness credibility. The court rejected the claimant's explanations of forgetting the prior incidents as not credible.

Workers' Compensation FraudMisrepresentation of Medical HistoryFalse Statements Under OathWage Replacement Benefits DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Law Section 114-aAppellate Review of Board DecisionWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidencePrior Knee InjuriesAdministrative Appeal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McKenzie v. Revere Copper Products

The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 2002 and received workers' compensation benefits. After it was discovered she was working as a waitress, a question arose regarding a potential violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a for misrepresentation. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found no violation, though benefits were adjusted due to her current employment. The employer appealed, contending the claimant failed to disclose her employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that no violation occurred, as the claimant had informed the employer of her intent to seek work and readily disclosed her waitress job when asked. The court also deemed the employer's request to cross-examine medical professionals untimely.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationFraudDisabilityBack InjuryEmployment DisclosureAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceUntimely RequestReduced Earnings
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ahmed v. City of New York

The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) promulgated "Health Care Rules" to deduct six cents per fare from taxi drivers for health care services and disability coverage. Petitioners, including taxi drivers, challenged these rules, arguing they were ultra vires and violated the separation of powers. The Supreme Court annulled the rules but initially denied restitution. On appeal, the court affirmed the annulment, finding the TLC exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily in establishing the deductions. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting the petitioners' request for restitution of the improperly deducted funds.

New York City Taxi and Limousine CommissionHealth Care RulesUltra ViresSeparation of PowersArbitrary and CapriciousRestitutionTaxi DriversDisability CoverageRegulatory AuthorityAdministrative Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ7516108
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ANGELICA CROTTE vs. UFO, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Virginia Surety's petition for removal because it was unverified, violating WCAB Rule 10843(b). The WCAB also noted the petition's excessive length and improper attachments, which violated multiple rules, including CA Rule 10232(a)(10) and WCAB Rule 10842(c). Based on these egregious violations, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on Virginia Surety's counsel, Sophia E. Martinez, pursuant to Labor Code section 5813.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB RulesLabor Code 5813SanctionsFrivolousWillful Failure to ComplyWCJAdministrative Law JudgeVirginia Surety Company
References
1
Case No. 14-35443
Regular Panel Decision

In re Weidenbenner

The Debtors initiated a motion alleging that Wells Fargo violated the automatic stay by placing an administrative freeze on their bank accounts after they filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This freeze led to a bounced check and a $25 penalty. The court ruled that Wells Fargo's administrative freeze was indeed a willful violation of the automatic stay, rejecting the bank's arguments regarding compliance with turnover provisions or set-off rights. Furthermore, the court found that the Debtors had constitutional and statutory standing to pursue damages. As a result, the Debtors were awarded $25.00 in actual damages, along with costs and attorney's fees.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic StayStay ViolationAdministrative FreezeWells FargoChapter 7Damages AwardedWillful ViolationTurnover ProvisionDebtor Rights
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Amster v. New York City Sheriff's Office

Claimant, a deputy sheriff, was injured in October 1994 and awarded workers' compensation benefits. A question arose regarding a misrepresentation of material fact in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found insufficient evidence for a violation, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. Claimant appealed the Board's decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence that claimant made false statements about working for a security services company, despite his initial denial and later admission. The court also rejected his credibility argument.

MisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse StatementCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDeputy SheriffEmployment InjuryBenefits Disqualification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Elmer v. Marocchi Trucking Co.

In 1997, a claimant sustained injuries while working as a truck driver for Marocchi Trucking Company, Inc., leading to workers' compensation awards for physical injuries, depression, and narcotic addiction. The workers’ compensation carrier alleged a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a, presenting video surveillance that contradicted the claimant's asserted limitations, such as being wheelchair-bound. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently a panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board found no violation, crediting the claimant's explanations regarding heavy narcotic use and physicians' assumptions. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence and that resolving conflicting evidence was within the Board's province.

Workers' CompensationFraud AllegationSection 114-aSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyVideo SurveillanceCredibilityNarcotic AddictionAppellate ReviewAffirmed Decision
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 10,705 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