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 Ayers v. Hakes

Claimant, a horse groom for Gordon Hakes' business, Painted Post Car Mart, developed carpal tunnel syndrome while working at Larry Hakes' farm. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Utica Mutual Insurance Company's policy, covering automotive work, did not cover the claimant's farm-related injury. The Board also found Gordon Hakes and Larry Hakes jointly and severally liable as uninsured employers due to a dual employment relationship. This appeal affirmed the Board's findings on policy coverage and dual employment but reversed the imposition of joint and several liability, remitting the matter to determine if a joint venture existed and, if not, to apportion liability between the Hakeses.

Workers' CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeInsurance Policy CoverageEmployer LiabilityDual EmploymentJoint and Several LiabilityAppellate ReviewRemand for Further ProceedingsHorse Grooming InjuryPolicy Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2001

LaBarbera v. C. Volante Corp.

This action, brought under the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA, sought recovery of delinquent pension fund contributions from October 1, 1993, to June 30, 1997. The court previously granted default judgment against C. Volante Corp. and C. Volante Trucking Corp. Plaintiffs, trustees of Local 282 Funds, moved for summary judgment against the remaining defendant, Vital Trucking Corp. The court found C. Volante Corp. liable for contributions based on its course of conduct, adopting collective bargaining agreements. C. Volante Trucking Corp. was found jointly liable under the 'single employer' theory due to shared operations, management, and ownership with C. Volante Corp. Vital Trucking Corp. was found jointly and severally liable under the 'alter ego' theory, as it was formed shortly after Volante/Trucking ceased operations, sharing substantially identical business purpose, equipment, customers, and management with the Volante family, indicating an attempt to avoid CBA obligations. The court denied Vital's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion, adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation for damages.

Labor Management Relations ActEmployee Retirement Income Security ActPension Fund ContributionsDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentSingle Employer DoctrineAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion Labor
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Joint Apprenticeship & Training Council of Local 363 v. New York State Department of Labor

The plaintiff, Joint Apprenticeship and Training Council of Local 363 (JATC), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) from deactivating its status as a registered apprenticeship training program. JATC argued that deactivation procedures should mirror deregistration, requiring a hearing, and that the Fitzgerald Act provided a private right of action. The court denied the motion, finding no federal requirement for a hearing for deactivation and distinguishing it from deregistration, which has more severe consequences. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Fitzgerald Act does not create a private right of action for program sponsors. The court also found no irreparable harm to the plaintiff or its apprentices, as apprentices could transfer to other programs without losing credit, and the JATC program could re-register or continue unregistered.

Preliminary InjunctionApprenticeship ProgramDeactivationDeregistrationNew York State Department of LaborFitzgerald ActPrivate Right of ActionIrreparable HarmFederal RegulationsState Regulations
References
11
Case No. ADJ1124123 (BGN 0064929) ADJ3374432 (BGN 0061307)
Regular
Oct 22, 2018

MARY BAKER vs. SWEEETHEART CUPS; CIGA by SEDGWICK CMS for FREMONT INSURANCE in liquidation and PORTEOUS FASTENERS/PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, CHUBB INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, reversing the finding that CIGA remained liable for permanent total disability indemnity and medical treatment for the applicant's industrial injuries. The Board found that because the applicant's injuries resulted in a joint and several award with a solvent insurer, Pacific Indemnity, CIGA has no obligation to pay as "other insurance" was available. The decision clarifies that CIGA is absolved of liability for medical treatment jointly caused by both injuries, but remains liable for treatment solely caused by the September 1979 injury. Pacific Indemnity is now solely responsible for all remaining permanent total disability indemnity and medical treatment costs, adjusting for payments already made by CIGA.

CIGASweetheart CupsPorteous FastenersFremont InsurancePacific IndemnityChubb InsuranceWilkinson doctrinejoint and several liabilitycovered claimsother insurance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Finkel v. Triple a Group, Inc.

Plaintiff, Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry, initiated an action against The Triple A Group, Inc. (TAG) and Michael Volpe under ERISA and LMRA to recover delinquent benefit fund contributions. Following the defendants' default, Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) proposing that the plaintiff be awarded damages. The District Court, after reviewing the R&R and finding no clear error, concurred with its findings. Consequently, the court ordered TAG liable for a total of $77,089.54, encompassing unpaid contributions, bounced checks, interest, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Additionally, Michael Volpe was found jointly and severally liable with TAG for $2,266.31 of these delinquencies, stemming from a prior settlement agreement.

Default JudgmentERISA ViolationLMRA ClaimDelinquent ContributionsBenefit FundsCollective Bargaining AgreementDamages AwardAttorney's FeesLiquidated DamagesPersonal Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. Meadowlakes Development Corp.

The dissenting judges argue against the majority's interpretation of CPLR Article 16, particularly regarding the limitation of liability for indemnification claims. They contend that a party found 50% or less at fault, such as third-party defendant Home Insulation and Supply, Inc., should have its indemnification liability limited to its proportionate share. The dissent asserts that the legislative intent of Article 16 was to protect low-fault defendants from disproportionate liability, a purpose contradicted by the majority's ruling that upholds joint and several liability for indemnitors irrespective of their fault percentage. The dissenting opinion highlights that applying joint and several liability in this case would unfairly hold Home, found only 10% at fault, liable for 100% of the loss. Consequently, the judges would modify the original order and judgment to limit Home's indemnification liability to 10% of the amount paid by Meadowlakes.

CPLR Article 16Joint and Several LiabilityIndemnificationProportionate LiabilityLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Third-Party ActionStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionCommon-Law Indemnification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. General Motors Corp.

The defendant, General Motors Corporation, moved the court for an order granting costs and expert witness fees related to discovery, specifically for depositions of their expert witnesses by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel, Clements & Ducharme, P.C., disclaimed responsibility, arguing that the plaintiffs themselves were solely liable for these costs. The court analyzed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) and the attorney-client relationship, noting that plaintiffs' attorneys had previously advanced fees, indicating an intent to incur liabilities jointly with their clients. The court agreed with the defendant's policy argument to prevent discovery abuses. Consequently, the court ordered both the plaintiffs and their counsel, Clements & Ducharme, P.C., to be held jointly and severally liable for the $5,350.25 in discovery costs and fees, entering judgment in favor of General Motors Corporation.

Discovery CostsExpert Witness FeesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C)Attorney LiabilityClient LiabilityJoint and Several LiabilityRetainer AgreementAgency RelationshipPrincipal-AgentLegal Fees
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1998

Pyramid Champlain Co. v. R.P. Brosseau & Co.

These consolidated actions involved various claims arising from contracts for electrical work during the construction of the Pyramid Champlain Centre North shopping mall. Pyramid Champlain Company, the owner/developer, had contracted with R.P. Brosseau & Company for electrical work, who in turn obtained supplies from Westinghouse Electric Supply Company (WESCO). The dispute arose when Pyramid breached its contracts with Brosseau by failing to make payments, leading to Brosseau's departure from the project. The Supreme Court found Pyramid breached its contracts with Brosseau and was directly liable to WESCO based on an oral promise, with Brosseau also being jointly liable to WESCO. On cross appeals, the appellate court affirmed the findings regarding Pyramid's breach of contracts and its direct liability to WESCO, and also upheld the dismissal of Pyramid's claims against Brosseau for willful exaggeration of mechanics' liens. The judgment was modified to clarify that the sum owed to WESCO, including statutory interest, is the joint and several liability of Brosseau and Pyramid, ensuring WESCO does not receive a double recovery of interest.

ContractsElectrical WorkConstruction LawBreach of ContractMechanics' LiensStatute of FraudsAgency RelationshipDamagesJoint and Several LiabilityCross Appeals
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,261 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