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

In re the Arbitration between Windsor Central School District & Windsor Teachers Ass'n

The Windsor Central School District (District) and the Windsor Teachers Association (Association) had a collective bargaining agreement. The Association filed grievances for guidance counselors assigned study hall duties, claiming a violation of section 11.3 (e) of their agreement. An arbitrator ruled in favor of the Association, citing the District's past practice of not assigning guidance counselors to study halls. The District and Superintendent of Schools petitioned the Supreme Court to vacate the award, which was granted on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded their authority by relying on past practice. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that arbitrators can indeed rely on past practice to interpret collective bargaining agreements and did not exceed their authority in this case.

Collective bargaining agreementArbitration awardVacaturPast practiceArbitrator authorityGrievanceEducation lawTeachers' unionAppellate reviewScope of arbitration
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

Windsor v. United States

This case addresses Edie Windsor's constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage exclusively as between one man and one woman. This definition required Windsor to pay federal estate tax on her late same-sex spouse's estate, a tax from which heterosexual couples were exempt. Windsor contended that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened to defend DOMA's constitutionality. The Court denied BLAG's motion to dismiss and granted Windsor's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to Windsor and awarded her $353,053.00 plus interest and costs.

Constitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseFifth AmendmentDefense of Marriage ActDOMASame-sex MarriageFederal Estate TaxSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissJudicial Scrutiny
References
62
Case No. 0718 2903
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1979

Claim of Forte v. Larchment Manor Park Society

Rocco Forte, a fuel oil truck driver, suffered a myocardial infarction in 1971 while at work. He later experienced a second infarction in 1972 while lifting an air conditioner at home, which the board found causally related to the 1971 accident. In 1975, while working as a security guard, he sustained a leg injury and chest pain after a fall, leading to another myocardial infarction. He died in 1976 after cardiac arrest following a coronary angiogram, with his death found causally related to the 1971 accident and other incidents. The Workers’ Compensation Board apportioned disability payments and found causal relationships. Employers Gunn Brothers & Rye Fuel Company, Argonaut Insurance Company, Larchment Manor Park Society, and Federal Insurance Co. appealed these findings, but the Board's decision was affirmed based on conflicting medical opinions.

Myocardial InfarctionCausationApportionmentWorkers' Compensation AppealMedical Testimony ConflictSubstantial EvidenceOccupational HazardCardiac ArrestConsequential InjuryMultiple Injuries
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home v. Local 144 Division of 1199, National Health & Human Services Employers Union

Plaintiff Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home sought to permanently enjoin an arbitration hearing related to the suspension of its employee, Cynthia Sullivan. The defendant, New York’s Health & Human Services Employers Union 1199/SEIU, AFL-CIO, opposed this motion and cross-moved for summary judgment and/or dismissal. The core issue revolved around whether an obligation to arbitrate survived the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in October 1997, given that the incident leading to Sullivan's suspension occurred in December 1998. The court determined that the dispute did not arise under the expired CBA, nor was there an implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate post-expiration disputes, as the plaintiff's conduct was inconsistent with implied consent. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff's petition was not moot, despite the arbitration having already taken place, because the court retains power to act until an arbitration award is confirmed. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to permanently enjoin the arbitration was granted, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss for mootness was denied.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCBA ExpirationImplied-in-fact ContractFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActPermanent InjunctionMootnessEmployee SuspensionJudicial Determination
References
25
Case No. MON 0255649
Regular
Dec 27, 2007

IN SOON SONG vs. WINDSOR MANOR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied In Soon Song's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior finding that her psychiatric injury claim was barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(h). This section excludes claims substantially caused by lawful, non-discriminatory, good-faith personnel actions. The Board adopted the Judge's report, which detailed how Song's employment issues, including disciplinary actions and a workplace conflict investigation, constituted such actions. Defendant's request for sanctions was also denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDWINDSOR MANORMON 0255649LAO 0771737ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code 5813sanctionsFindings and OrderLabor Code section 3208.3(h)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2009

Kitkas v. Windsor Place Corp.

This case involves an appeal by Boca Electric Corp., a second third-party defendant, from an order denying its motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, an employee of Boca, sustained personal injuries in an electrical explosion at a construction site. Boca argued that the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which would preclude claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against an employer. The appellate court found that Boca met its burden of proof, and the plaintiff and Windsor Place Corp., the premises owner, failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding a qualifying grave injury. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order and granted Boca's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action for contribution and common-law indemnification against it.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContributionCommon-law IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryEmployer LiabilityConstruction AccidentElectrical InjuryAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 525358
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2018

Matter of Busat v. Ramapo Manor Nursing Ctr.

Claimant, a food service worker, suffered work-related injuries to his back, neck, and right shoulder in 1997, receiving workers' compensation benefits. In 2014, claimant resumed treatment for his right shoulder and was found to have a 50% temporary disability. During a vacation, he underwent an unrelated cardiac procedure, which prevented him from receiving medical clearance for planned shoulder surgery due to ongoing heart medication. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that claimant's departure from employment was unrelated to his disability and that he failed to remain attached to the labor market. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's reasoning contradicted by consistent medical evidence indicating claimant's inability to obtain shoulder surgery clearance due to his cardiac condition. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsLabor Market AttachmentMedical ClearanceCardiac ConditionShoulder InjuryBoard ReconsiderationAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceCausation
References
3
Case No. CA 13-00856
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2014

PIOTROWSKI, RICHARD v. MCGUIRE MANOR, INC.

Plaintiff Richard Piotrowski sued McGuire Manor, Inc. under Labor Law and common-law negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall off a wobbly ladder. A jury initially found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed the judgment and granted a new trial. The court determined that the trial court committed a reversible error by failing to give an expanded sole proximate cause charge to the jury, thereby prejudicing a substantial right of the defendant. Dissenting justices argued that the issue regarding the jury charge was not properly preserved for review or that the charge provided was sufficient.

Labor LawSole Proximate CauseJury ChargeAppellate ReviewNegligenceLadder AccidentReversalNew TrialPreservation of ErrorCPLR
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2012

Anton v. West Manor Construction Corp.

This is an appellate decision regarding an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, from February 1, 2012. The appeal concerns a reargument of summary judgment motions between West Manor Construction Corp., Bradhurst 100 Development LLC, and third-party defendant Tiegre Mechanical Corp. The appellate court modified the original order, granting Tiegre's motion to dismiss the common-law indemnification and contribution claims, as the injured plaintiff did not sustain a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court affirmed the original determination regarding contractual indemnification claims, finding that the plaintiff's alleged rule violation was not a proximate cause of the accident, which involved a cinder block dropped by an employee of Larino Masonry, Inc.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationContributionWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryProximate CauseAppellate DivisionReargumentThird-Party Claims
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2012

Bodtman v. Living Manor Love, Inc.

The appellate court reversed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which had denied summary judgment to defendants RM Farm Real Estate Inc. and Living Manor Love, Inc. The defendants' motions to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 240 and 200, and common-law negligence, were consequently granted. The Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed because the plaintiff's task of drilling holes for a temporary sign was not considered "altering" the building as defined by the statute. Furthermore, the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were also dismissed. This was due to the determination that the hazard, the inherently slippery and sloped metal roof, was readily apparent and inherent to the work, precluding defendant liability based on constructive notice.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law 240Labor Law 200NegligenceSafe Place to WorkConstruction SafetyAppellate DivisionDismissal of ClaimsInherent RiskNotice of Hazard
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 52 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