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

Claim of Fisher v. KJ Transportation

Claimant, a tractor-trailer driver for KJ Transportation (KJT), sustained a work-related back injury. KJT, facing bankruptcy, entered into an agreement with Omne Staffing, Inc. to provide workers' compensation insurance, purportedly making KJT's employees those of Omne. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that an employer-employee relationship still existed between the claimant and KJT, prompting KJT's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that KJT maintained control over the claimant's work, provided equipment, and was listed as the payor, thus establishing the employer-employee relationship despite the agreement with Omne.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation InsuranceBankruptcy implicationsStaffing agreementAppellate affirmationControl test for employmentWork-related back injuryThird-party liabilityCorporate restructuringLegal precedent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Russo v. M & M Transportation

The claimant, employed by M & M Transportation, sustained back and knee injuries in 1976. The employer's insurance carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, alleging various preexisting conditions under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). However, the carrier failed to produce medical proof to support its claim of preexisting conditions, even after being directed to do so by the Hearing Officer. Consequently, the Hearing Officer discharged the Special Fund, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the carrier's failure to provide clarifying medical proof and finding the Board's denial of reconsideration was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court emphasized that the existence of a previous disability must be established before addressing the employer's knowledge of such a condition.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Medical ConditionMedical EvidenceCarrier ObligationsBoard DiscretionDenial of ReconsiderationAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Decker v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including the United Transportation Union and Local 377, initiated an action in state court against CSX Transport, Inc. (CSXT), alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions related to CSXT's planned sale of a rail line. CSXT moved for dismissal, contending that the plaintiffs' notice was barred by a national agreement moratorium, Local 377 lacked standing, the carrier held a unilateral right to sell lines, and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) preempted RLA Section 6. Conversely, plaintiffs asserted that the National Mediation Board had docketed their dispute as major, the sale was a tactic to circumvent RLA provisions, and the moratorium did not apply to them due to local bargaining representation. The court, drawing parallels with Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. Staten Island Railroad Corp., determined that the ICC's authorization of the sale brought the matter under its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court found itself unable to provide a remedy without interfering with the ICC's order and granted CSXT's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Railway Labor ActStatus Quo ProvisionsMotion to DismissRail Line SaleInterstate Commerce CommissionPreemptionCollective BargainingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefJurisdiction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Holcomb v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal by the Daily News regarding a Workmen's Compensation Board award of death benefits to the widow of John Holcomb. Holcomb, an employee of the Daily News, sustained fatal injuries after falling from a company delivery truck while being transported to work by a fellow employee. The appellants argued that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the employer was not contractually obligated to provide transportation. However, the Board found, and the Appellate Division affirmed, that a common and regular practice of employees transporting each other to work, knowingly acquiesced to by the employer for its own benefit, constituted an implicit assumption of responsibility for transportation-related risks. The court held that a frequent and regular practice of providing transportation, even if not contractually obligated, can render such transportation incidental to employment, making resulting injuries compensable.

Fatal AccidentTransportation to WorkEmployer AcquiescenceCommon PracticeCourse of EmploymentDeath BenefitsWorkers' CompensationImplied ContractGratuitous TransportationRisk Responsibility
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 1985

Gay v. American Janitor Service

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision affirming that the claimant sustained an accidental injury during the course of employment. The claimant, an employee of American Janitor Service, was injured in a company vehicle while being transported to work. Although transportation was not contractually mandated or compensated, it was a regular accommodation provided by the employer. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing Matter of Holcomb v Daily News, which established that workers' compensation benefits can be awarded for transportation-related injuries if an employer knowingly acquiesces to a long-established practice of providing transport. The record supported the finding of such a common practice.

Workers' CompensationTransportation InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilityImplied AgreementAcquiescenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionAccident
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 252, Transport Workers Union of America v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The court annulled the determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) dated August 6, 1981, which had found Local 252, Transport Workers Union of America, ALF-CIO, engaged in a strike. The court agreed with the dissenting opinion of Chairman Harold R. Newman and the hearing officer's decision, finding PERB's conclusion unsupported by evidence and arbitrary. The court distinguished Matter of Dowling v Bowen as inapplicable due to the unique challenges faced by bus drivers, citing Van Vlack v Ternullo as more relevant. The decision also noted that the union executive's actions demonstrated good faith despite a prior 'big trouble' remark.

Public Employment Relations BoardStrikeUnion DisputeCollective BargainingArbitrary and CapriciousEvidentiary ReviewBus DriversVehicle and Traffic LawGood FaithAnnulment
References
2
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. ADJ2984143 (LBO 0340645) MF ADJ3946341 (LBO 0340644) ADJ896223 (LBO 0340643)
Regular
Jun 26, 2012

FERNANDO GUZMAN vs. ACU-AIR CARGO, LLC, PARSONS TRANSPORTATION, LLC, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the WCJ's decision that barred the applicant's claims due to the employer's bankruptcy. The Board clarified that a bankruptcy discharge injunction does not prevent a WCAB proceeding if the goal is to collect from a collateral source like the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEF), not the discharged bankrupt employer personally. Relying on *In Re Munoz*, the Board held that a WCAB proceeding can continue to establish an award against the bankrupt employer, which is a necessary precursor for the UEF to pay. Therefore, the applicant may proceed with their claims before the WCAB, provided they stipulate they are not seeking personal recovery from the bankrupt employer.

UEFbankruptcy discharge injunctioncollateral sourcesubstantial shareholderLabor Code section 3717.1uninsured employerproof of claimautomatic staynondischargeable debtMunoz
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 13,785 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