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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of General Elec. Co. (Elec., Etc., Workers)

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ8 156794
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

NURY PEREZ vs. BLUE RIVER DENIM, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed a lien claim due to a failure to pay a $100 lien activation fee. The lien claimant, Premier Psychological Services (PPS), claims computer issues prevented timely payment. While the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, the WCAB may rescind the dismissal if PPS pays the activation fee within ten days of this notice. If paid, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06WCABadministrative law judgereconsiderationrescissiondismissallien conferenceCompromise and Releaseindustrial injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

William I. v. Schenectady County Department of Social Services

Devan J. was placed in foster care in 1978, with her natural mother, Shirleen J., actively seeking her return despite mental health challenges. Petitioners, the foster parents, initiated a custody proceeding. Family Court granted custody to petitioners, citing extraordinary circumstances like psychological bonding and lengthy separation. This appellate court reversed that decision, finding no extraordinary circumstances because the separation occurred while the mother was attempting reunification and there was insufficient evidence of severe trauma upon returning the child. The case was dismissed and remitted to Family Court for consideration of visitation rights for the petitioners.

Custody DisputeParental RightsFoster CareChild WelfarePsychological BondingExtraordinary CircumstancesBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawAppellate ReviewReversal
References
3
Case No. 2016-189 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2018

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. Hartford Ins. Co.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The court found that defendant had established that there was no coverage for no-fault benefits since defendant had demonstrated that the Workers' Compensation Board had awarded workers' compensation benefits to plaintiff's assignor for injuries she had sustained in the accident which gave rise to the claims at issue. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, a lack of coverage defense may be raised without regard to any issue as to the propriety or timeliness of an insurer's denial of claim form. The papers submitted by defendant in support of its motion, and by plaintiff in support of its cross motion, established that plaintiff had submitted claims for workers' compensation benefits and that the Workers' Compensation Board had awarded plaintiff's assignor workers' compensation benefits for injuries she had sustained in the accident at issue. As plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, the order is affirmed.

No-fault benefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BoardLack of coverage defenseAssignee claimsAppellate ReviewFirst-party benefitsInsurance claimsTriable issue of factCivil Court
References
2
Case No. ADJ6655023
Regular
Jan 16, 2014

MARIA DIAZ vs. ACTIVE WINDOW PRODUCTS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST/EXPLORER

This case involves a lien claim by Safety Works, Inc. that was dismissed by the workers' compensation judge for failure to pay a lien activation fee. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to a federal court preliminary injunction that enjoined the enforcement of these fee provisions. Consequently, the Board rescinded the dismissal order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeRescinded orderReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSafety WorksInc.Preliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerSection 4903.06WCJ
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Westminster Bank, Plc v. Grant Prideco, Inc.

This memorandum opinion addresses a diversity action initially brought by National Westminster Bank (NatWest) against Grant Prideco, Inc. (GPI), Weatherford International, Inc., and Active Media Services, Inc. (Active). Following a settlement, NatWest's claims against GPI and Weatherford were dismissed, and its claims against Active were assigned to GPI, with GPI substituted as the plaintiff. GPI also had cross-claims against Active. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment between GPI and Active. It ultimately declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, finding the core dispute to be between non-diverse parties (both GPI and Active being Delaware citizens) and that the Freeport-McMoRan rule did not mandate retention of jurisdiction. Consequently, the action was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the cross-motions for summary judgment were denied.

Subject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionAssignment of ClaimsIndispensable PartiesFreeport-McMoRan RuleCross-ClaimsSummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionState Law
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 2,135 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