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
Aug 28, 2008

Aminzadeh v. Hyosung USA

The claimant, a machine operator, sustained a left hand injury in 2005. During treatment for this injury, she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist. A separate claim for carpal tunnel syndrome was established as an unrelated occupational disease, with a disablement date of June 2007 by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier appealed the Board’s ruling on the date of disablement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the selection of June 2007 as the date of disablement was supported by substantial evidence, as the condition was objectively diagnosed then.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeDate of DisablementSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLeft Hand InjuryMachine OperatorMedical DiagnosisBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01980, 525411
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Matter of Portlette v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

Claimant Oneshiua Portlette, a bus operator, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits. Initially, her employer, Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, paid benefits for injuries Portlette reported sustained in a bus accident. However, the employer later suspended payments and raised fraud concerns after video evidence contradicted Portlette's account of the incident and her injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Board found that Portlette failed to prove a causally-related injury and made material misrepresentations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's consideration of the employer's evidence despite a lack of timely notice of controversy, and upholding the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions which supported that no causally-related injury occurred.

Workers' CompensationCausationFraudVideo EvidenceMedical OpinionNotice of ControversyPreclusionAppellate ReviewBus OperatorInjury Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2009

Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Plaintiff James Tepperwien filed a Title VII action against his former employer, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., alleging same-sex sexual harassment by a co-worker, Yito Messina, and subsequent retaliation. The harassment included physical assault and sexually explicit remarks, which Tepperwien reported to management. Entergy moved for summary judgment on claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment and a portion of the retaliation claim, finding sufficient factual disputes for trial. However, the court granted summary judgment to Entergy on the constructive discharge claim, concluding that the plaintiff's working conditions were not objectively intolerable.

Same-sex harassmentTitle VIIHostile work environmentRetaliationConstructive dischargeSummary judgmentWorkplace discriminationSexual harassmentEmployer liabilityFederal court decision
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co.

Plaintiff Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Defendant Standard Dye & Finishing Co., Inc. to collect withdrawal assessments under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). Standard Dye ceased its primary business operations in June 1980, prior to the MPPAA's effective date of September 26, 1980, but retained a few employees for clean-up and dismantling work through October 1980, for whom pension contributions were made. The core legal issue is whether Standard Dye "completely withdrew" from the pension plan before September 26, 1980, which would eliminate liability due to the Tax Reform Act of 1984. The Court analyzed the meaning of "permanently ceases all covered operations" under 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a), considering similar precedents. The Court found that the retention of a skeleton crew for liquidation activities did not prevent a complete cessation of covered operations. Therefore, Standard Dye effected a complete withdrawal prior to the MPPAA's effective date.

Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanComplete WithdrawalCovered OperationsTax Reform Act of 1984Retroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07342 [189 AD3d 970]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2020

Benitez v. Bolla Operating LI Corp.

Walter Hernandez Benitez, a former deli worker, initiated a putative class action against Bolla Operating LI Corp. and other entities. He sought unpaid 'spread-of-hours' compensation, alleging that his employment at various Bolla Market locations entitled him to such pay under the Hospitality Industry Wage Order. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The Appellate Division, Second Department, further affirmed this ruling, concluding that the Bolla Market locations did not meet the regulatory definitions of 'restaurants' or '[f]ast [f]ood [e]stablishments.' Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed spread-of-hours compensation, and his motion for class action certification was denied as academic.

Unpaid WagesSpread-of-Hours CompensationHospitality Industry Wage OrderClass ActionMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Deli WorkersRestaurant DefinitionFast Food EstablishmentAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07123 [211 AD3d 1298]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Lambert v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

The case involves Joseph Lambert, a claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits for work-related repetitive use injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded a schedule loss of use (SLU) for his right arm, left arm, and right leg, payable weekly. Subsequently, Lambert requested the remaining SLU award be paid in a lump sum, which the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The employer, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, appealed this decision, arguing that a lump sum request must be made at the time of the initial award. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b) do not impose time limitations on an injured employee's request for a lump sum payment of an SLU award.

Schedule Loss of UseLump Sum PaymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityClaimant RightsEmployer AppealLegislative IntentPayment Timing
References
8
Case No. GRO 024430
Significant
Dec 08, 2004

Myron Abney vs. AERA ENERGY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This en banc decision holds that the revised Labor Code section 5814, operative June 1, 2004, applies to unreasonable delays in compensation payments that occurred prior to its operative date, provided the finding of unreasonable delay is made on or after that date.

SB 899Labor Code Section 5814En Banc DecisionReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityPenaltyUnreasonable DelayOperative DateStatute of LimitationsConclusive Presumption
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayes v. Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers

The case involves plaintiff George A. Mayes suing Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers, and its officers for alleged discrimination in job referrals and denial of rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The defendants counterclaimed, seeking expenses incurred from Mayes' "baseless charges" against union members James Tommaney and Dan Lewis, citing violations of the Union's constitution and state law tort and breach of contract claims. Mayes moved for summary judgment, arguing good faith in filing charges under LMRDA and lack of court jurisdiction over the counterclaims. The court found material factual disputes regarding Mayes' motives, asserting jurisdiction over the counterclaims under 29 U.S.C. § 185. It also determined that the tort and breach of contract claims were sufficiently pleaded, thereby denying Mayes' motion for summary judgment and allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

Labour LawUnion DisputeSummary JudgmentCounterclaimsLMRDAFree SpeechUnion ConstitutionJurisdictionTort ClaimsBreach of Contract
References
13
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06564 [132 AD3d 149]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2015

Matter of Phillips v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

This case concerns the termination of bus driver Tony Aiken by the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (Transit Authority) for sexual harassment. Aiken, also a union official, was on union-paid release time when the termination was imposed. His union challenged the discipline, arguing the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) protected employees on release time from disciplinary action. An arbitrator sided with the union, ordering Aiken's reinstatement. The Supreme Court confirmed this award. However, the Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA and the resulting reinstatement violated a well-defined public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the employer's legal obligation under Title VII and New York Human Rights Laws to prevent and address sexual harassment, and concluded that upholding the award would impede the Transit Authority's ability to fulfill this duty and deter future misconduct.

Sexual harassmentEmployment terminationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration awardPublic policy exceptionReinstatementUnion-paid release timeWorkplace disciplineTitle VIINew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,150 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