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
Jan 09, 2003

Almonte v. Western Beef, Inc.

Ramon Almonte was injured in a workplace accident involving a garbage compactor and received workers’ compensation benefits as an employee of Western Beef, Inc. He and his wife later sued Western Beef, Western Beef Retail, Inc., and Western Beef-Metropolitan Avenue, Inc., for personal injuries. Western Beef was dismissed due to workers' compensation exclusivity. Western Beef Retail and Western Beef-Metropolitan Avenue, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing worker's compensation bar or corporate dissolution, respectively. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order was modified to grant summary judgment for Western Beef-Metropolitan Avenue, Inc., as it was dissolved before the accident. The denial of summary judgment for Western Beef Retail was affirmed, as its alter ego argument was not properly raised and lacked sufficient evidence.

Personal injurySummary judgmentCorporate dissolutionAlter ego doctrineEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewConsolidated actionWorkplace accidentGarbage compactorExclusivity defense
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Elec. Co., Inc. v. COMMUNICATIONS WKRS., ETC.

This action involves Western Electric Company's motion for summary judgment to vacate a labor arbitrator's opinion and award, and Communications Workers of America's (CWA) cross-motion for compliance. The dispute arose from Western Electric's unilateral changes to travel compensation routes for its installers in the New York area, which CWA argued violated a collective bargaining agreement and a local understanding. The arbitrator ruled in favor of CWA, concluding that Western Electric was estopped from making the revisions due to misrepresentations made during negotiations. The District Court, exercising a narrow scope of review, found that the arbitrator's award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and past practices, ultimately denying Western Electric's motion and enforcing the arbitrator's decision.

Labor DisputeCollective BargainingArbitration AwardSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEstoppelTravel CompensationRoute RevisionsUnion NegotiationsPast Practice
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dorato v. Blue Cross of Western New York, Inc.

George Dorato (plaintiff) sued Blue Cross of Western New York (defendant), also known as HealthNow, Inc., doing business as Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Western New York, after his health insurance benefits for a herniated disk were denied. Dorato's workers' compensation claim, which alleged a work-related injury, resulted in a $80,000 Section 32 settlement agreement, although his claim was officially 'disallowed' by the Workers' Compensation Board. HealthNow denied benefits citing a contract exclusion for injuries where payment is available under Workers' Compensation Law, arguing the settlement constituted such payment. Dorato moved for summary judgment, seeking a de novo review and asserting collateral estoppel, and also moved to amend his complaint to recharacterize his claims under ERISA. The court applied an 'arbitrary and capricious' standard of review to HealthNow's decision, noting the contract's discretionary authority. The court found that collateral estoppel did not apply due to lack of identical issues and HealthNow's inability to participate in the WCB proceedings. Ultimately, the court granted HealthNow's motion for summary judgment, ruling that their interpretation of the contract's exclusion was rational and not arbitrary or capricious. Dorato's motions were consequently denied as futile.

ERISAWorkers' CompensationHealth InsuranceSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewBenefit DenialContract ExclusionEmployee Welfare Benefit Plan
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sainato v. Western Suffolk BOCES

The petitioner appealed a judgment dismissing his employment termination review petition due to improper notice of claim to Western Suffolk BOCES. The Supreme Court had previously denied leave to serve a late notice because the motion was made after the Statute of Limitations expired. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from an earlier decision, affirmed the judgment against the petitioner, and found the petitioner's remaining contentions without merit. This affirmed the requirement for proper and timely notice of claim in proceedings against school districts.

Employment TerminationCustodial WorkerCPLR Article 78Notice of ClaimEducation Law § 3813Statute of LimitationsLate Notice of ClaimAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewSchool District Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 1989

Kinek v. Gulf & Western, Inc.

The Kinek plaintiffs and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) sued Gulf & Western, Inc. (G&W) and its pension plan for alleged violations of a collectively-bargained pension agreement and ERISA, stemming from a 'spin-off' where G&W transferred assets and liabilities to Horsehead Industries' pension plan. Plaintiffs argued G&W failed to fully fund vested pension benefits upon this transfer, as contractually required by the G&W Plan's sections 3.1 and 10.2. The court confirmed plaintiffs' standing and applied a de novo standard of review. It ruled that the G&W Plan's provisions, when read together, obligated G&W to provide full funding for vested benefits during an asset transfer. Consequently, the court denied G&W's motion for summary judgment and granted the Kinek plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment, holding G&W liable.

ERISALMRAPension PlanEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentContract DisputePension FundingAsset TransferSpin-offVested Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.)

Appellant Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania (BCWP) appealed a Bankruptcy Court decision that denied its request for relief from an automatic stay in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of LTV Steel Company, Inc. BCWP, an insurance provider for LTV Steel's former constituent companies (J&L and Republic), sought to set off a $2.88 million refund it owed LTV/J&L against over $3 million in unreimbursed claims it paid as a participant in a national syndication arrangement for LTV/Republic. The Bankruptcy Court found no mutuality between BCWP and LTV Steel to permit the set-off under 11 U.S.C. § 553(a). BCWP argued for third-party beneficiary status and equitable principles. The District Court affirmed the denial, ruling that BCWP was not a third-party beneficiary and that allowing the set-off would create an inequitable preference for BCWP over other creditors.

BankruptcyAutomatic StaySet-offMutualityThird-Party BeneficiaryInsurance ContractsHealth Care BenefitsSyndication ArrangementEmployer-Employee BenefitsDebtor in Possession
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. v. Service Employees International Union

Plaintiff Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) moved for summary judgment, seeking to define its job security obligations, declare defendant's interference with 'interface' illegal, and obtain a permanent injunction. Defendant Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 235 (Local 235) cross-moved for summary judgment, requesting dismissal of the complaint and an order compelling OTB to negotiate a job security agreement. The central issue revolved around whether the Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Betting Law allowed OTB to unilaterally establish job security provisions or mandated bilateral negotiation with the union. The court concluded that legislative intent and regulations (9 NYCRR 5203.5) required bilaterally negotiated agreements. Consequently, the court denied OTB's motion and granted Local 235's cross-motion, ordering OTB to negotiate a job security agreement.

Job SecurityOff-Track Betting LawPari-Mutuel BettingCollective BargainingSummary JudgmentUnion RightsStatutory InterpretationRacing and Wagering BoardLabor DisputeNegotiated Agreements
References
11
Case No. 86431698
Regular Panel Decision

Webb v. Western Electric Co.

Ernestine Webb, an employee of Western Electric Company, Inc., sustained an industrial accident in 1964. After a period of closure and re-injury, she developed severe back pain in 1972 while performing cotton winding, attributed to constant bending. The Workers’ Compensation Board found this disability to be an occupational disease, reactivating a prior dormant condition, and allocated liability between Western Electric and the Special Fund. On appeal, the court determined that Webb's prior back condition was active, not dormant, and found insufficient evidence to hold Western Electric liable for an occupational disease disablement. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the case was remitted for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseIndustrial AccidentPrior ConditionCausally Related DisabilityApportionment of LiabilitySpecial FundAppellate ReviewReversalRemittiturBack Injury
References
1
Case No. 120 AD3d 1323
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2014

Tara N.P. v. Western Suffolk Board of Cooperative Educational Services

The plaintiff, Tara N.P., commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries after being sexually assaulted by Larry I. Smith, a level three sex offender, at a facility where she was attending a GED course. Smith was referred to the facility by the Suffolk County Department of Labor as part of a 'welfare to work' program, despite an agreement that the facility would not accept individuals with criminal records. The Department of Labor allegedly failed to disclose Smith's criminal background. The appellants (County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Department of Social Services, and Suffolk County Department of Labor) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, asserting governmental immunity. The Supreme Court denied their motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to the appellants on the complaint against them, finding no special duty owed to the plaintiff. However, the Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the cross-claims, citing a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellants breached a duty of care to NACEC.

Personal InjuryGovernmental ImmunitySpecial DutySummary JudgmentContribution ClaimSex OffenderNegligenceDepartment of LaborSexual AssaultAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. GOL 0087934, GOL 0087935, GOL 0087936
En Banc
Feb 13, 2002

Alonso Navarro vs. A&A Farming, Western Growers Insurance Co.

The Board held that the applicant's claim of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a was preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as the claim was premised on the employer's termination of contributions to an ERISA-regulated health plan.

ERISA preemptionLabor Code section 132agroup health benefitsdiscrimination claimadverse actionemployee welfare benefit planworkers' compensationindustrial injuriesemployer contributionstemporary disability
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 176 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