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

London v. London

This case concerns a lawsuit filed by a former wife against her former husband, alleging unlawful interception and recording of her telephone conversations with their eight-year-old daughter. The defendant used an automatic answering machine attached to his home phone, where the daughter resided, to record these calls during 1973-1974, a period of their legal separation before their divorce. The plaintiff sought damages under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 and 2520, which prohibit willful wire communication interception and provide a civil cause of action. The Court, citing Simpson v. Simpson, dismissed the complaint, ruling that Congress did not intend these statutes to apply to a family member's interception of calls within the family home, regardless of the recording method or the specific family relationship.

Telephone EavesdroppingWire Communication InterceptionFamily LawDomestic DisputesPrivacyFederal JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss18 U.S.C. 251118 U.S.C. 2520Marital Home
References
3
Case No. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Case No. ADJ3874707 (ANA 0393103)
Regular
Jul 01, 2009

WILLIAM MARCHESE vs. THE HOME DEPOT, Permissibly SelfInsured, Adjusted By SEDGWICH CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a worker's compensation claim where the applicant's former attorney, Krishna Gulaya, is facing potential sanctions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is investigating allegations that Gulaya submitted a falsified Compromise and Release agreement, including improper witnessing and backdating of signatures. The WCAB has scheduled a conference solely to address the imposition of sanctions against Gulaya for this misconduct. Gulaya is ordered to appear at the conference to demonstrate good cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsApplicant's AttorneyCompromise and ReleaseWCJIndustrial InjuryFindings of FactAward and OrderSet AsideWitness Signatures
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Olympia Mechanical Piping & Heating Corp.

The plaintiffs, former employees of Olympia Mechanical Piping & Heating Corp., initiated an action to recover unpaid wages and supplemental benefits under Labor Law § 220, alleging they were paid below the prevailing rate for public works projects. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed several causes of action, including breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and suretyship, for failure to state a cause of action, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-application to serve a second amended complaint. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the dismissals of the various causes of action. However, the appellate court modified the original order by granting the plaintiffs' cross-application for leave to serve a second amended complaint, citing the absence of prejudice to the defendant and the potential merit of the plaintiffs' claims.

Labor LawPrevailing WageBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Leave to AmendAppellate ReviewPublic Works
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golden v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.

Three former employees of Ohio Barge Line, Inc. (Ohio) filed separate actions against Ohio, its parent United States Steel Corporation, and subsidiary Bradley Transportation Line for wrongful discharge. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its representatives were also joined as defendants in two of the actions. Ohio moved to vacate the service of process and dismiss the complaints, arguing it was not doing business in New York and thus not amenable to service there. The court found that Ohio, a separate Pennsylvania-incorporated subsidiary, was not subject to New York jurisdiction, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that the parent company's presence extended jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted Ohio's motions to dismiss and quashed the service of process.

JurisdictionService of ProcessCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityWrongful DischargeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 4Labor Management Relations ActLabor Management and Disclosure ActDistrict CourtIntercorporate Relations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arcadi v. Nestle Foods Corp.

This class action, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), involved employees and former employees of Nestle Foods Corporation who sought overtime compensation for time spent changing into and out of mandatory uniforms. The defendant, Nestle, moved for summary judgment, arguing that this time was non-compensable based on an established "custom or practice" under their collective bargaining agreement, as permitted by FLSA § 203(o). Plaintiffs contended they never explicitly agreed to forgo such compensation. The court examined prior case law on Section 203(o) and found compelling similarities, noting that the employees effectively bargained away their right to compensation for clothes-changing time in exchange for other concessions. Consequently, the court granted Nestle's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Collective Bargaining AgreementOvertime CompensationUniform PolicyClothes-Changing TimeSummary JudgmentClass Action LawsuitCustom or PracticeLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrucci v. Hogan

This case concerns former employees of the Interborough Rapid Transit System who became City of New York employees and subsequently resigned from the Transport Workers Union. Following their resignation, the union and its officers picketed the plaintiffs' homes and distributed leaflets. The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to stop these actions. The defendants argued that this was a labor dispute under section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, which would prevent an injunction without specific procedural compliance. The court determined that section 876-a does not apply to employees of the State or its political subdivisions, thus public employees are exempt. Furthermore, the court found the ultimate object of the picketing, to coerce plaintiffs into union membership and thereby establish a 'closed shop' in city service, to be unlawful as it contravenes the New York State Constitution and Civil Service Law, which mandate appointments based on merit and fitness. The picketing of private residences with an unlawful purpose was also deemed malicious. Consequently, the court granted the temporary injunction against the defendants.

Labor UnionCivil ServicePicketingTemporary InjunctionAnti-Injunction ActPublic EmployeesClosed ShopFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of AssociationConstitutional Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Mete v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation

This class action alleged age discrimination in employment against the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD). Plaintiffs, former Chiefs of Developmental Center Treatment Services, claimed disparate treatment and disparate impact arising from a 1989 reduction in force (RIF) that eliminated their positions. All 46 Chiefs, who were over 40, were either demoted or retired, and statistical evidence showed a disproportionate impact on employees over 40. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while plaintiffs established a prima facie case, OMRDD provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the RIF (economic conditions and long-standing concerns about the position's utility), which plaintiffs failed to adequately prove was a pretext for discrimination.

Age DiscriminationClass ActionSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactReduction in ForceEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie CaseStatistical Evidence
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00876
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2018

Krog Corp. v. Vanner Group, Inc.

Krog Corporation, a former member of an insolvent self-insured workers' compensation trust, sued its insurance broker, Vanner Group, for damages related to its trust membership. The initial complaint asserted multiple causes of action including breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and RICO violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the entire amended complaint, prompting an appeal by Krog Corporation. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of RICO, common-law indemnification, unjust enrichment, and negligence claims, with the latter two being time-barred. However, the court reversed the dismissal of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims, finding them timely to the extent they alleged conduct after March 24, 2008, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Broker NegligenceStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractFraudFiduciary DutyNegligent MisrepresentationRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)Self-Insured TrustInsolvency
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Showing 1-10 of 1,436 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