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. 2023 NY Slip Op 23398 [81 Misc 3d 21]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C. v. Global Commodities, Inc.

Plaintiff, Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C., filed a commercial claims action against Global Commodities, Inc. for $5,000 for unpaid medical services provided to an alleged employee. Plaintiff claimed defendant agreed to pay privately. The District Court dismissed the action after excluding a document detailing telephone conversations, which plaintiff argued was admissible under the business records exception or relaxed commercial claims evidence rules. The Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal, ruling that plaintiff failed to prove the patient was injured during employment or that the document was admissible as a business record, thus failing to establish defendant's liability for the medical bill. The court emphasized that while commercial claims courts are not bound by strict evidence rules, judgments cannot rest solely on hearsay.

Commercial claimsMedical servicesUnpaid billsBusiness records exceptionHearsayEvidence rulesEmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial justice
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1994

Hess v. B & B Plastics Division of Metal Cladding, Inc.

Plaintiff Carolyn K. Hess sued her former employer B & B Plastics and her union (Local 686 and UAW) for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged discriminatory firing by B & B Plastics and discriminatory refusal by the union to pursue her grievance. The union defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that Hess's claim against them constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Hess moved to remand the case to state court, arguing her claims were independent state law actions. The court, citing precedent, found that Hess's state law claims against the union were completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to remand those claims to state court was denied, and the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against the employer.

Sex discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Federal preemptionDuty of fair representationMotion to remandFederal question jurisdictionWell-pleaded complaint ruleCollective bargaining agreement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunbar v. Landis Plastics, Inc.

Petitioner Sandra Dunbar, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), sought injunctive relief against Landis Plastics, Inc. under Section 10(j) of the NLRA. The court addressed Landis's motion for reconsideration of a previous order, its motion to strike the appearance of United Steelworkers' counsel, and the merits of the NLRB's petition. The court denied Landis's motions and the NLRB's request for interim promotions. However, the court granted the NLRB's request for injunctive relief regarding general workplace practices, and ordered interim reinstatement for Kathy Saumier and Clara Sullivan, along with the rescission of unlawful disciplinary notices.

National Labor Relations ActSection 10(j)Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticesUnion OrganizingReinstatementDiscriminatory DischargeAmicus CuriaeLabor LawCollective Bargaining
References
21
Case No. Civ. 79-714
Regular Panel Decision

Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Diamond Shamrock Corp.

This case involves several pending motions before Chief Judge Curtin concerning patent infringement disputes between E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company and Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation (plaintiffs) against Diamond Shamrock Corporation (defendant). The court addressed Du Pont's motion to vacate a prior order joining it as an involuntary plaintiff, which was denied. Diamond's motion to consolidate two related cases, Civ. 79-714 and Civ. 79-794, was granted in the interest of judicial economy. Additionally, Diamond's motion to file an amended counterclaim was partially granted, allowing the assertion of new claims for infringement of the Dotson '194 patent and unfair competition, including a new jury trial right for these specific issues. The court clarified that the jury trial right for previously asserted claims was waived.

Patent InfringementMotion PracticeCase ConsolidationAmended CounterclaimJury Trial WaiverPendent JurisdictionRule 19(a) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 42 Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 13 Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 38(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

The Matter of the Claim of Estate of Norman Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corporation

Decedent Norman Youngjohn, employed by Berry Plastics Corporation, suffered work-related injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow in 2014, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Before his permanent partial disability benefits claim for a schedule loss of use (SLU) award was resolved, Youngjohn died in March 2017 from a heart attack unrelated to his work injuries. He left no surviving spouse, minor children, or qualifying dependents. His estate sought the full value of the posthumous SLU award, arguing that 2009 amendments to the Workers' Compensation Law, which permitted lump sum SLU payments, rendered WCL § 15 (4) (d) inapplicable. This section limits an estate's recovery for unaccrued SLU benefits to reasonable funeral expenses in cases of unrelated death without qualifying survivors. The Workers' Compensation Board limited the award to funeral expenses, while the Appellate Division held that the estate was entitled to the portion accrued up to the date of death plus reasonable funeral expenses. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the 2009 amendments on lump sum payments did not implicitly alter WCL § 15 (4) (d)'s limitation on an estate's recovery of posthumous SLU awards. The Court emphasized that section 15 (4) (d) remains in effect and must be harmonized with the amendments, limiting recovery to benefits accrued before death and reasonable funeral expenses for the remainder.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lump Sum PaymentEstate RecoveryFuneral ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAccrual of BenefitsNew York Court of AppealsUnrelated Death
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plastics Industry, Inc. v. County of Suffolk

This case addresses a challenge to Local Laws, 1988, No. 10 of the County of Suffolk, also known as the Plastics Law, which prohibited the use of certain nonbiodegradable plastic materials in Suffolk County. The primary contention was that the Suffolk County Legislature failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) when it issued a negative declaration, asserting no significant environmental impact. The court found that the Legislature did not adequately consider potential environmental harms, including those presented by opponents of the law, and failed to provide a rational basis for rejecting substantial evidence against the law. Consequently, the court declared the Plastics Law null and void, necessitating an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to fully assess its environmental implications.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationPlastic BanLegislative EnactmentJudicial ReviewSolid Waste ManagementEnvironmental Impact StatementLocal LawCompliance
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dudlo v. Plastics

The claimant sustained a left ankle injury in 1973 while working for Polytherm Plastics, receiving workers' compensation benefits. After being discharged for misconduct in 1977, the claimant sought to reopen his 1973 claim, arguing his disability prevented him from securing new employment. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found a causal link between the disability and the inability to find work, awarding benefits. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the claimant's loss of employment was primarily due to misconduct, not solely the disability. The court ruled that the claimant failed to provide substantial evidence that his disability was a cause of his subsequent inability to obtain employment, thereby defeating the inference of causation. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings on the issue of causation for the claimant's loss of earnings.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of EarningsCausationMisconduct DischargeEmployment LimitationsAppellate ReviewRemandEvidentiary BurdenWage-Earning CapacityReopened Workers’ Comp Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jelenic v. Campbell Plastics

Pro se plaintiff Karl Jelenic sued his employer Campbell Plastics for wrongful termination and discrimination, and his union, IUE Local 318, for inadequate representation during grievance hearings and arbitration. Jelenic alleged he was improperly discharged for raising safety concerns, while Campbell maintained he was terminated for insubordination. He also claimed the union failed to assist him adequately. The court found no evidence that Local 318's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, thus no breach of the duty of fair representation occurred. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing Jelenic's complaint in its entirety.

wrongful terminationdiscriminationunion representationgrievancearbitrationsummary judgmentinsubordinationduty of fair representationcollective bargaining agreementfederal court
References
15
Case No. ADJ12427109
Regular
Apr 04, 2023

RICHARD ADAMS vs. MR. PLASTICS, INC., EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award finding an industrial injury to the applicant's right hand. The applicant claimed a fracture occurred while operating a machine, though medical records initially focused on a non-industrial injury from a ladder. Crucially, a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) opined the fracture was consistent with the applicant's described work mechanism. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning which prioritized the QME's opinion and medical records documenting the fracture prior to termination, over the defendant's arguments regarding proof of injury and temporary disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilityMachine OperatorRight Hand InjuryScaphoid FractureAOE/COEContemporaneous Medical RecordsQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Dr. Roland
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 226 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