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

Triboro Coach Corp. v. State

This case addresses an appeal concerning whether a "Workmen’s Compensation and Employers’ Liability Policy" covers an employer's payment of first-party benefits to an injured employee. The claimant, Triboro Coach Corp., sought indemnification from the defendant, State Insurance Fund, after paying such benefits to an employee involved in a motor vehicle accident during employment. The Court of Claims initially granted summary judgment to the claimant. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that an exclusion in the insurance policy limited coverage to liabilities founded in negligence. As first-party benefits are payable irrespective of fault, the employer's liability for these benefits fell squarely within the exclusion, leading to the dismissal of the indemnification claim.

Workers' Compensation PolicyEmployer's LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault InsuranceIndemnificationInsurance Policy InterpretationExclusion ClauseNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 1946

In re the Arbitration between Transport Workers Union of America, C.I.O., & Fifth Avenue Coach Co.

The Transport Workers Union of America, O.I.O., applied to vacate an arbitration award made in a dispute with the Fifth Avenue Coach Company. The core of the dispute revolved around the implementation of one-man operation of double-deck buses and related employment terms. The Union contended that the arbitrator failed to render a decision on the primary question regarding the implementation of one-man operation, despite it being a key item in the submission agreement. The court found that the arbitrator explicitly avoided deciding this issue, thus failing to fulfill the terms of the submission. Consequently, the court ruled that the award was not mutual, final, and definite on all matters submitted for arbitration, rendering it invalid. The application to vacate the award was therefore granted, with an order for resubmission.

ArbitrationAward VacatedLabor DisputeCollective BargainingOne-Man OperationDouble-Deck BusesArbitrator AuthorityScope of SubmissionUnionPublic Transport
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. v. Transport Workers of America, Local 100

Plaintiffs Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. and Surface Transit, Inc. sued Transport Workers of America, Local 100, Transport Workers of America, and Michael J. Quill for damages alleging a breach of collective bargaining agreements following a 1962 strike. The Union defendants moved for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the arbitration clauses of their agreements. Defendant Michael J. Quill moved to dismiss the action against him, contending that Section 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act does not permit actions against individual union officers. The court found the arbitration clauses sufficiently broad to cover the strike issue and granted the stay of proceedings. Additionally, the court granted Quill's motion to dismiss, citing Supreme Court precedent that such actions are against the union, not its president.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementStrikeTaft-Hartley ActMotion to StayMotion to DismissUnion LiabilityIndividual LiabilityNo-Strike ClauseGrievance Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lenart v. Coach, Inc.

Plaintiff Todd Lenart filed an action against his former employer, Coach Inc., alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Lenart moved to stay all proceedings and seal the docket, while Coach cross-moved to dismiss the complaint. The court denied Lenart's motion to stay and to seal. Regarding Coach's motion to dismiss, the court granted it in part and denied it in part. Specifically, Lenart’s Title VII and NYSHRL hostile work environment claims were dismissed, but his hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL and his wrongful termination claims under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL survived the motion to dismiss, based on the standards clarified in Littlejohn v. City of N.Y.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawPleading StandardMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkLittlejohn StandardWrongful Termination
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Triboro Coach Corp.

Ritchie R. Brown, a pro se plaintiff, sued Triboro Coach Corporation under Title VII and the ADA, alleging racial discrimination, disability discrimination (due to extensive absences caused by sleep apnea and cellulitis, and failure to accommodate with a light-duty position), and retaliation for his absences and refusal to sign a resignation letter. Triboro moved for summary judgment. The court found Brown failed to establish a prima facie case for racial discrimination, as he could not show similarly situated white employees were treated more favorably, and Triboro had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination—failing two drug tests and not completing rehabilitation. Regarding ADA claims, the court determined Brown was not a qualified individual with a disability as he couldn't perform essential job functions and didn't properly request accommodation. His retaliation claim also failed because being on disability leave is not a protected activity under Title VII, and the resignation letter incident occurred post-termination. Consequently, the court granted Triboro's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Brown's claims.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationADATitle VIISummary JudgmentDrug Testing PolicyRetaliation ClaimSleep ApneaBus Operator
References
34
Case No. ADJ2336181 (AHM 0129605)
Regular
Feb 25, 2011

DAVID SNAPP vs. COACH USA, AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE administered by SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves David Snapp's workers' compensation claim against Coach USA. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the temporary disability indemnity rate based on the parties' stipulation. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that temporary disability was owed from October 28, 2005, to September 17, 2008, finding substantial evidence supported this duration. The Board also affirmed the permanent disability award, need for future medical treatment, attorney's fees, and defendant's third-party credit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 4656Substantial EvidenceAgreed Medical Examinations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1977

Orbinati v. Utica Mutual Insurance

A claimant, employed as a physical education teacher and track/football coach by the Utica City School District, sustained an injury in August 1970. His average weekly wage was calculated to include his coaching stipend. Following his injury, he returned to his teaching role with restrictions that prevented him from coaching. Despite subsequent salary increments resulting in a higher overall salary than his pre-injury average weekly wage, the claimant contended he was experiencing reduced earnings due to the loss of his coaching allowance. The Workers’ Compensation Board and the referee affirmed there were no reduced earnings, concluding that his teaching and coaching constituted a single, integrated employment. This decision was subsequently affirmed without costs.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationDual EmploymentSingle EmploymentCoaching StipendUtica City School DistrictWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DecisionInjury in Course of Employment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lauder v. First Unum Life Insurance

Plaintiff Barbara Lauder initiated an action against Coach Stores, Inc. and First Unum Life Insurance Company, alleging violations of ERISA and COBRA after her claim for long-term disability benefits was denied. Lauder contended she was entitled to benefits despite her employment termination and that Coach provided untimely notices. The court granted Coach's motion for summary judgment on claims three and four, ruling that Coach was not an ERISA fiduciary and COBRA does not cover long-term disability insurance. Lauder's motions for summary judgment on claims one and three were denied, and claim two against First Unum was dismissed for similar COBRA reasons, leaving a factual dispute regarding her employment status on one ERISA claim against First Unum.

ERISACOBRALong-Term Disability BenefitsSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanGroup Health PlanEmployment TerminationInsurance CoverageDenial of Benefits
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2011

Dietz v. Board of Education of Rochester City School District

Petitioner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement of his employment with the Rochester City School District after his position as a "school instructor/transition counselor" was abolished. He contended he was entitled to seniority rights within the "special subject tenure area" of school social worker under 8 NYCRR 30-1.8 (b) (9) and Education Law § 2585 (3), asserting he was not the least senior person in that tenure area. The Supreme Court denied the petition, and the appellate court affirmed. The collective bargaining agreement between the District and the union specified that layoffs for "school instructors" would occur within distinct categories, not tenure areas, and that school instructors could not displace teachers. By accepting employment as a school instructor and participating in the CBA, the petitioner was deemed to have waived any seniority rights in the school social worker tenure area.

Employment LawSeniority RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementSchool InstructorSchool Social WorkerTenure AreaCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial ReviewWaiver of RightsWorkforce Reduction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stouter v. Smithtown Central School District

Maura Olga Stouter, a Caucasian, 59-year-old lesbian woman, was employed by Smithtown Central School District as a physical education teacher and volleyball coach. After retiring as a teacher in 2003, she continued coaching. In 2006, she was not reappointed as varsity girls volleyball coach, which she alleges was due to discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, age, and retaliation for her Title IX compliance concerns. The court granted summary judgment to Smithtown on claims including Title VII sexual orientation discrimination, gender discrimination (disparate treatment) under Title VII and NYHRL, age discrimination under ADEA and NYHRL, ADEA retaliation, and Title IX gender discrimination. However, the court denied summary judgment on claims for hostile work environment (gender), sexual orientation discrimination (NYHRL), and retaliation (Title VII, Title IX, NYHRL), which will proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexual Orientation DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIADEATitle IXNew York Human Rights Law
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 51 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