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

League of Voluntary Hospitals & Homes v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Workers Union

The court addresses an application for a preliminary injunction against Local 1199, a union planning a three-day strike. The League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of N. Y. sought the injunction following a previous temporary restraining order concerning a one-day strike. The union argued that each planned strike required a new legal proceeding, but the court deemed the strikes "episodic and organically connected." Citing concerns about blocked ingress/egress to hospitals and the union president's threats to "shut down" facilities, the judge found a preliminary injunction necessary under Labor Law § 807 to protect public health and safety. The injunction restrains the union from unlawfully interfering with hospital operations, blocking access, and picketing within certain distances of hospital entrances and emergency rooms.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionStrike ActionUnion ActivityHospital AccessPicketing RegulationsCollective BargainingCivil Disobedience ThreatPublic Health and SafetyIngress Egress Interference
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ickes v. Sayville Animal Hospital

Claimant, a veterinary technician, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits. The carrier sought to suspend payments due to the claimant's failure to provide a work status affidavit. At a hearing, the carrier introduced the issue of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market without prior notice to the claimant, which the WCLJ promptly dismissed. Despite the WCLJ's ruling, the Workers' Compensation Board later modified the decision, finding voluntary withdrawal and rescinding benefits. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's rescission of benefits, ruling that the claimant was denied due process as she had no notice or opportunity to address the voluntary withdrawal issue. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market WithdrawalDue ProcessNotice of IssueAppellate ReviewRemandBenefit SuspensionAdministrative LawWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Modification
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neck-Wear Contractors Ass'n

The defendant, Slate Belt, moved to vacate a notice of voluntary dismissal filed by the plaintiff, the Government, under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Slate Belt argued the dismissal was not at an 'early stage' and would cause prejudice, despite never having filed an answer. The court found that no joinder of issue occurred, and the merits of the controversy were never presented or passed upon by the court. Extended private negotiations between the parties regarding a proposed decree were not considered the equivalent of an answer or court action on the merits, nor did incurred legal fees constitute sufficient prejudice. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff was within its rights to file the voluntary dismissal, and the defendant's motion to vacate was denied.

Voluntary dismissalRule 41(a)(1)(i)Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureSherman ActJoinder of issuePrejudiceMeritsNegotiationsDistrict CourtMotion practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clohesy v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Claimant, a utility company employee, filed three workers’ compensation claims between 1979 and 1997 for back/neck injuries and asbestosis. He resigned in December 1999, which the employer contended was a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disagreed, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the retirement voluntary. Claimant appealed this Board decision. The Appellate Division found the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, noting the claimant had legitimate medical ailments interfering with his duties, and the Board unduly emphasized the lack of explicit medical advice to retire. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Voluntary withdrawal from labor marketWorkers' Compensation benefitsPermanent partial disabilityAsbestosis diagnosisMotor vehicle accident claimsMedical evidenceSubstantial evidence reviewAppellate reviewRemittalDisability contributing to retirement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re D. Children

The Monroe County Department of Social Services sought Family Court approval for the voluntary transfer of custody of five children from the D. family. Following approval, the Family Court appointed Sally Moore as a guardian ad litem and later ordered the Department of Social Services to cooperate with her. The Director of the Department of Social Services appealed these orders, contending that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction after approving the initial voluntary transfer instrument. The appellate court agreed, ruling that the Family Court's jurisdiction under Social Services Law § 358-a terminated upon approval, and therefore, it lacked authority to appoint a guardian ad litem or compel cooperation with the CASA volunteer without a pending proceeding. The court reversed and vacated the Family Court's orders, emphasizing that any extension of judicial oversight in foster care matters must be legislatively granted.

Family LawChild CustodyVoluntary PlacementSocial Services LawFamily Court JurisdictionGuardian ad LitemCASAAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFoster Care
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2002

Claim of De Simone v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

A claimant, after a 33-year career with the employer involving asbestos exposure, was diagnosed with a severe, permanent asbestos-related pulmonary and pleural disease by July 2000. He retired in May 2001 at age 55, informing his employer that his disability prevented him from continuing work. The employer challenged his eligibility for post-retirement benefits, asserting a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found a causal link between his disability and retirement, awarding him benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant's retirement was not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Asbestos ExposureOccupational DiseasePulmonary AsbestosPleural DiseaseRetirement BenefitsVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketSubstantial EvidenceCausationDisability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Scarpelli v. Bevco Trucking Corp.

Claimant, aged 62, sustained a work-related back injury in February 1999, prompting his retirement the following day and the commencement of social security retirement benefits. Although he had planned to work part-time until age 65, he did not seek any employment post-injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to seek alternative work constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, despite being deemed permanently partially disabled. The employer and carrier's contention regarding the untimeliness of the appeal was rejected. Ultimately, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the determination of voluntary withdrawal.

Voluntary withdrawalLabor marketPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' CompensationAppeal timelinessMedical evidenceConflicting evidenceSocial security benefitsRetirementBack injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1978

M. H. v. J. H.

This case addresses a motion by the Brewery Workers Pension Fund to vacate a payroll deduction order issued by the Family Court. The order required the Pension Fund to deduct $35 per week from a retired respondent's pension for child support, benefiting the petitioner. The Pension Fund contended that the deduction violated its plan's anti-alienation provision, was not authorized by section 49-b of the Personal Property Law, and was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The court denied the Pension Fund's application, ruling that New York State law permits such deductions for child support despite pension plan restrictions and that ERISA's anti-assignment provisions do not prohibit court-ordered garnishments for support obligations, distinguishing them from voluntary assignments.

Child SupportPension GarnishmentERISA PreemptionPayroll Deduction OrderFamily LawSupport EnforcementAnti-Alienation ClausesState Law vs. Federal LawVoluntary vs. Involuntary TransferNew York Judiciary
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 1979

Weinberg v. D-M Restaurant Corp.

This case addresses the liability of a restaurant owner for a lost fur coat checked by a patron. The plaintiff sued for negligence after her Russian sable fur coat disappeared from the defendant's checkroom. The central legal question involved the interpretation of Section 201 of the General Business Law, specifically whether voluntary tips to a checkroom attendant constitute an 'exacted fee or charge' that would lift the statutory limitation of liability. The Court of Appeals ruled that voluntary gratuities are not 'exacted fees' under the statute, thereby limiting the restaurant's liability to $75 since no value was declared or a written receipt obtained. The court also clarified that restaurants are not legally required to post the provisions of Section 201. Consequently, the Appellate Division's judgment, which had awarded the plaintiff $9,578.75, was modified and reduced to $75.

NegligenceRestaurant LiabilityGeneral Business LawLimitation of LiabilityBailmentLost PropertyStatutory InterpretationGratuitiesCheckroom ServicesAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. United States

This case involves a facial constitutional challenge brought by New York City against two federal statutory provisions: Section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. These federal laws preempt a New York City ordinance that restricts City officials from sharing information about aliens' immigration status with federal authorities. The plaintiffs argued that the federal provisions violated the Tenth Amendment, the Guarantee Clause, and principles of federalism by commandeering the City's policymaking apparatus and interfering with core governmental functions. The court, presided over by District Judge Koeltl, granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the action, holding that the federal statutes merely prevented local interference with voluntary information exchange and did not unconstitutionally compel state action or violate the principles invoked by the plaintiffs.

FederalismTenth AmendmentGuarantee ClausePreemptionImmigration StatusState SovereigntyLocal GovernmentInformation SharingConstitutional LawStatutory Challenge
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 1,652 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