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

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority

Plaintiffs (American Atheists, Dennis Horvitz, Kenneth Bronstein, and Jane Everhart) sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, Inc. The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and state constitutions, challenging the display of a steel cross artifact in the National September 11 Museum. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court found that the Foundation's actions were attributable to the state. However, applying the Lemon test, the court determined that displaying the cross had a secular purpose, did not endorse religion, and did not create excessive entanglement. The court also rejected the Equal Protection and state law claims, concluding that no intentional discrimination was shown and that the state law claims failed for various reasons, including non-applicability to the bi-state agency or failure to comply with notice requirements. Therefore, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted.

First AmendmentEstablishment ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSummary JudgmentState ActionReligious SymbolSeptember 11 MemorialMuseum ExhibitGovernment FundingConstitutional Law
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Reif & Williams Sportswear, Inc.

This case addresses whether a corporation is bound by an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement ratified by its predecessor partnership. The petitioner, Local 169 of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, initiated arbitration against the respondent, Williams Sportswear Co., Inc., for defaulting on payments to employee funds. The corporation, formed by the same partners who ran the predecessor partnership, continued the same business in the same location and sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was not a party to the agreement. While the Special Term denied the stay, the Appellate Division reversed, absolving the corporation of the obligation. The higher court, however, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the corporation acts as an 'alter ego' of the original promoters and is thus bound by the collective bargaining agreement, emphasizing that a change in corporate form does not negate pre-existing contractual obligations when the underlying business remains unchanged. Therefore, arbitration was deemed enforceable.

Arbitration AgreementCollective Bargaining AgreementCorporate LiabilityAlter Ego DoctrineSuccessor EmployerStay of ArbitrationPartnership DissolutionCorporate FormationContractual ObligationsUnion Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allstate Insurance v. Loester

Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company initiated a declaratory judgment action against its insured, Loester, and Stigliano (the underlying personal injury claimant). Allstate sought to disclaim coverage, alleging Loester breached the policy's cooperation clause by failing to appear for a deposition and being generally uncooperative. The court found Allstate's evidence, including an investigator's affidavit, insufficient to prove willful noncooperation, citing inadequate efforts to locate and secure Loester's assistance. Crucially, the court noted a stipulation allowing Loester's deposition before trial, rendering the disclaimer claim premature. Consequently, Allstate's motion for summary judgment was granted only to the extent of awarding summary judgment to defendant Stigliano, and the entire action was dismissed as premature due to the absence of a presently justiciable controversy.

Insurance DisclaimerCooperation ClauseSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionInsured NoncooperationBurden of Proof (Insurer)Willful ObstructionPremature ActionJusticiable ControversyMotor Vehicle Accident
References
20
Case No. ADJ7284210
Regular
Apr 18, 2012

Kevin Kennedy vs. CITY OF OAKLAND, JT2 INTEGRATED OAKLAND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a trial judge's decision that denied a firefighter's claim for a stroke. The Board found that Labor Code section 3212's anti-attribution clause prevents rebuttal of the industrial injury presumption based on a pre-existing congenital heart condition. Therefore, the presumption of industrial causation applies, and the matter is returned for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 3212anti-attribution clauserebuttable presumptionindustrial injurycongenital heart conditionfirefightercerebrovascular systempatent foramen ovaleAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)non-industrial causation
References
5
Case No. ADJ10782441 ADJ9193836
Regular
Apr 15, 2019

Stacy Smith vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to affirm the applicability of Labor Code section 3212 presumptions for hypertension and hernia injuries to an ocean lifeguard. However, the Board amended the decision to defer issues of permanent disability and apportionment. This deferral is due to the apparent conflict between the WCJ's 50% apportionment of hernia disability and the non-attribution clause of Labor Code section 3212. The Board returned these issues to the trial level for further hearing and determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 3212Heart trouble presumptionHernia presumptionFire department memberOcean lifeguardCumulative injuryLumbar spine injuryRight knee injurySkin injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quevedo v. City of New York

Plaintiff Raphael A. Quevedo, an employee of Berley Industries, Inc., was injured by a boiler explosion in a building owned by the City of New York. Quevedo sued the City and V and A Oil Burner Services, Inc., alleging negligence. The City subsequently commenced a third-party action for contractual indemnification against Berley Industries, Inc., based on a clause in their maintenance contract. Berley argued the indemnification clause was void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 and that the City's notice to the insurer was untimely. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division both affirmed the enforceability of the clause. This court affirmed, clarifying that General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 only voids clauses indemnifying for *sole* negligence, and since no sole negligence was proven, the clause remained enforceable to the extent it covered joint fault. The court also rejected the untimely notice argument, citing the contract's provision that notice by either party was sufficient.

Indemnification clauseBuilding maintenance contractContractual liabilityGeneral Obligations LawSole negligenceJoint faultInsurance coverageThird-party actionSettlementAppellate review
References
6
Case No. ADJ6996303
Regular
Mar 23, 2023

JOHN DAVIES vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PROBATION DEPT., COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award of 84% permanent disability for a Probation Officer with heart/hypertension and hip injuries. The Board found that Labor Code section 3212.10's heart presumption and section 4663(e)'s non-attribution clause prohibit apportionment of the applicant's new and further disability. The defendant's contention that prior stipulations required apportionment was rejected, citing precedent that such presumptions take precedence. The Board clarified that the 84% represents the applicant's total permanent disability, not solely the new and further disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentHeart PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.10Non-Attribution ClauseLabor Code Section 4663(e)
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,093 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