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

Transit-mix Concrete Corp. v. Local Union No. 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America

Transit-Mix Concrete Corporation and Local Union No. 282, parties to collective bargaining agreements, had a dispute regarding seniority rights of former Colonial Sand and Stone Co. Inc. drivers after Transit-Mix acquired Colonial's assets. An arbitrator's 1979 award on employee seniority was later found by the NLRB and Second Circuit to have been improperly communicated by Local 282, leading to a breach of its duty of fair representation. Consequently, Local 282 was ordered to request reopening the arbitration to provide notice and a retroactive grace period for affected employees. Transit-Mix sought to stay this arbitration, arguing against reopening a final award and raising procedural defenses like statute of limitations and laches. The court, emphasizing the broad arbitration clause in their agreements, denied Transit-Mix's petition to stay and granted Local 282's cross-petition to compel arbitration, deferring the merits and procedural questions to the arbitrator.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority DisputeDuty of Fair RepresentationNLRB OrderLabor-Management DisputesArbitration EnforcementJudicial Review of ArbitrationFederal Labor LawUnion Liability
References
20
Case No. 15-01392
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Music Mix Mobile LLC v. Newman (In re Stage Presence, Inc.)

This adversary proceeding involves claims by Music Mix Mobile, LLC and other plaintiffs against Stage Presence, Inc. and its owner, Allen Newman. Plaintiffs alleged they were not paid for services provided for a benefit concert and sought to hold Mr. Newman personally liable for Stage Presence's debts under alter ego or piercing the corporate veil theories. The court analyzed whether Mr. Newman excessively dominated Stage Presence and if this was used to perpetrate fraud or injustice. The decision concluded that Stage Presence maintained its separate corporate identity in key financial and operational aspects, and Mr. Newman genuinely believed the concert's funding was legitimate. Consequently, the court dismissed the alter ego claims against Mr. Newman while allowing the underlying claims against Stage Presence.

Bankruptcy LawAlter Ego DoctrinePiercing the Corporate VeilCorporate LiabilityCreditor ClaimsDebtor-Creditor LawFraudulent MisrepresentationContractual ObligationsCorporate FormalitiesUndercapitalization
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. 527101
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2019

Matter of Bell v. Glens Falls Ready Mix Co., Inc.

Walter Bell, a diesel mechanic/driver, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding his schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right arm. Bell sustained work-related injuries requiring surgery and received workers' compensation benefits. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found an 80% SLU, the Board, crediting Dr. Maloney's opinion, determined a 50% SLU of the right shoulder and added 10% for elbow defects, resulting in a 60% SLU of the right arm based on the New York State Guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the guidelines for calculating SLU awards for combined upper extremity injuries.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryShoulder InjuryElbow InjuryMedical EvaluationTreating PhysicianIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Appellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPermanent Impairment Guidelines
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07588 [155 AD3d 605]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2017

De Souza v. Empire Transit Mix, Inc.

The plaintiff, Jefferson De Souza, an employee of a subcontractor, sustained eye injuries at a construction site due to a malfunctioning concrete hose. He sued LIC Res, LLC (the owner) and McGowan Builders, Inc. (the construction manager), among others. LIC Res, LLC sought summary judgment on its cross-claim for contractual indemnification against McGowan Builders, Inc., based on an agreement requiring McGowan to indemnify the owner for claims arising from its work or omissions. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that LIC Res, LLC, had established its prima facie entitlement to contractual indemnification and was not negligent, while McGowan failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjuriesCross ClaimAppellate DivisionProperty Owner LiabilityConstruction Manager ResponsibilitySubcontractor
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Katsaros v. Transit-Mix Concrete Corp.

Plaintiff Ted Katsaros brought an action against his employer, Transit-Mix Concrete Corporation, for breach of its collective bargaining agreement, and against Local 282 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters for breach of its duty of fair representation. The Court previously dismissed the claims as time-barred, applying the six-month statute of limitations from DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, finding the claims accrued when Katsaros filed charges with the NLRB in June 1980, and the present action was filed over a year later. Katsaros moved for reargument, arguing the statute of limitations should have been tolled during the NLRB proceedings, citing cases like Burnett and American Pipe. The Court denied the motion, distinguishing the cited cases as involving prior judicial actions, not administrative proceedings, and affirming that federal law governs limitations in hybrid actions, thus rejecting the tolling argument.

Statute of LimitationsLabor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementNLRBTollingHybrid ActionReargumentSeniority ListArbitration
References
9
Case No. ADJ4379045 (ANA 0389616)
Regular
Mar 19, 2012

FEDERICO MARTINEZ vs. ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, INC.

Defendant Robertson's Ready Mix sought to reopen a stipulated award of 81% permanent disability for Federico Martinez based on a change in law regarding life pension calculations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed significantly beyond the statutory 20-day limit. However, the WCAB returned the petition to the trial level to be considered solely as a petition to reopen based on the alleged change in law. This decision allows the parties to address the legal change at the trial judge level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to ReopenPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityLife PensionLabor Code Section 4659(c)Baker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Untimely Filing
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 540 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