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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ9440770 ADJ8897603
Regular
Nov 02, 2016

LEE WOOLEVER (Deceased); PENNY WOOLEVER; DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH

This case concerns a claim for workers' compensation death benefits by Penny Woolever, the ex-wife of deceased employee Lee Woolever. Ms. Woolever argued she was a total dependent despite their divorce due to ongoing financial support and a close relationship. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that she was not a dependent, as their divorce was final and they never resumed cohabitation. The Board distinguished this case from precedent allowing dependency claims based on reconciliation. Consequently, the death benefit was awarded to the Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit.

Esophageal cancerDeath benefitsDependency claimLabor Code section 3502Reconciliation of marriageSpousal supportTotal dependentDivorce decreeWCJ ReportLloyd Corporation
References
5
Case No. ADJ3197408 (FRE 0226208)
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

Guadalupe Ayon (Deceased); Irena Ayon, Miguel Ayon, Erica Ayon, Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit vs. Cal Grain and Hay; Zenith Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration for both the applicants and the defendant. The Board upheld the finding that the mother and sister were not dependents of the deceased worker, as they failed to prove a net financial benefit was provided to the household. Their argument for estate benefits under an unconstitutional statute was also rejected, with the Board noting that judicial decisions invalidating statutes apply retroactively. Consequently, the employer remains obligated to pay $125,000 to the Department of Industrial Relations for death without dependents.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDependent death benefitLabor Code section 4706.5(a)Fatal injuryDependencyPartial dependentFinancial dependencyNet financial benefitEstate benefitsUnconstitutional statute
References
7
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. ADJ3872772 (VNO 0546594) ADJ310152 (MON 0351415)
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

HIRAN EDIRIWEERA (Deceased); DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. SRR, LLC; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Petitioners, alleged partial dependents of a deceased worker, sought to overturn a 2007 Compromise and Release agreement where the insurer paid death benefits to the State's Death Without Dependents Unit, asserting they received no notice. The Board dismissed their petition for reconsideration of the 2007 order due to untimeliness and failure to meet reopening criteria. However, the Board removed the separate, pending death benefit claim (ADJ3872772) to address the petitioners' potential claims for partial dependency, acknowledging prior notification of their existence to the insurer.

Partial dependentsDeath benefitsCompromise and Release AgreementPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseReopeningTimelinessNoticeOpportunity to objectIndustrial injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ3276532 (OAK 0336096)
Regular
Mar 29, 2011

JERRY DUARTE (Deceased) SHIRLEY DUARTE (Widow) vs. STOESSER INDUSTRIES, SCIF INSURED PLEASANTON, FIREMAN'S FUND SACRAMENTO

This case concerns a widow's claim for workers' compensation death benefits following her husband's cancer death, alleging exposure to carcinogenic chemicals at work. The original finding barred the claim due to the statute of limitations, as the application was filed over a year after the employee's death. The Appeals Board, on reconsideration, reversed this, finding the defendant failed to prove the widow knew or should have known of the industrial causation within the one-year period. Therefore, the claim is not time-barred, and all other issues are returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Cumulative TraumaCarcinogenic ChemicalsDeath BenefitsStatute of LimitationsIndustrial CausationOccupational ExposureDependent ClaimMedical ConfirmationReasonable DiligenceAffirmative Defense
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2007

Droogan v. Raymark Industries, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision affirming death benefits for the spouse of a deceased worker. The decedent, diagnosed with asbestosis in 1997, died in 2005 from complications of a stroke and pneumonia. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that the asbestosis was a contributing factor to his death. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the claimant's medical expert provided a rational basis for the causal link between asbestosis and the decedent's post-stroke deterioration. The court concluded that the Board’s finding of a causal relationship was supported by substantial evidence, despite some conflicting medical testimony.

asbestosisdeath benefitscausal relationshipworkers' compensation lawmedical testimonypneumoniastroke complicationsAppellate Divisionsubstantial evidenceBoard decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salomon v. Adderley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs Geordany J. Salomon, Donielle Lewis, Dwight Edghill, and Shanroy Powell sought to amend their complaint against Adderley Industries, Inc. to include American Communications Industries, Inc. and several individuals (Lawrence Presser, Joseph Misseri, Vincent Cestaro) as additional defendants. They also requested to add a new claim under New York Labor Law Section 195. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York reviewed the motion, applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). The court granted the motion to add the new corporate and individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the amendment after new information emerged during discovery and that the proposed claims of employer status were plausible under the FLSA and NYLL. However, the request to add the NYLL § 195 claim was denied because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient good cause for its late inclusion.

Amendment of PleadingsJoinder of PartiesEmployer LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ClaimsDiscoveryGood Cause StandardUndue DelayFutility of Amendment
References
36
Case No. ADJ7099563, ADJ7825176
Regular
Mar 07, 2014

MARIA GONZALEZ (WIDOW) vs. THE GAP, INC. dba BANANA REPUBLIC, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE C/O SPECIALTY RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding that the deceased employee did not sustain an industrial injury to his nervous, cardiac, or hypertension systems. Furthermore, his death was determined not to be industrially caused, and his widow's claim for death benefits was denied. The Board found that the defendant's timely denial of the employee's inter vivos claim precluded the need for a separate denial of the death benefit claim arising from the same alleged injury. The Board also concluded that the applicant failed to present substantial medical evidence demonstrating industrial causation for the alleged conditions or the resulting death.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMiguel Angel GonzalezMaria GonzalezThe Gap Inc.Banana RepublicAmerican Zurich Insuranceindustrial injurynervous systemcardiac systemhypertension
References
10
Case No. ADJ556317 (VNO 0560264) ADJ6957841
Regular
Oct 05, 2010

DALE HENGEN vs. WILLIAM FRANKEL PLUMBING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a worker who sustained an industrial head injury and subsequent seizure, followed by death approximately 1.5 years later. While the initial injury and temporary disability were found to be industrial, the cause of death was contested, with potential contributing factors including binge drinking and the prior head trauma. The Appeals Board found insufficient medical evidence to definitively link the death to the industrial injury and therefore rescinded the prior decision. The matter is remanded for further development of the medical record to determine the causal factors of death, possibly through a neurology AME or QME.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRobert HengenDale HengenWilliam Frankel PlumbingState Compensation Insurance FundADJ556317ADJ6957841Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationAmended Findings Order and AwardWorkers' compensation judge
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,818 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