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

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on October 3, 2011, which declared the defendant's answer stricken due to non-compliance with a conditional preclusion order from October 31, 2006, and limited the trial to the issue of damages. This order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not complying with discovery requests and did not present a meritorious defense, which was necessary to vacate the preclusion order. The court also clarified that a Workers' Compensation Board panel decision dated August 28, 2009, regarding the plaintiff's accident-related disability, does not have preclusive effect. Additionally, a prior decision and order of this Court, entered on April 9, 2013, was recalled and vacated.

Discovery SanctionsStriking AnswerConditional Preclusion OrderSelf-Executing OrderMeritorious DefenseReasonable ExcuseWorkers' Compensation BoardPreclusive EffectAppellate ReviewRecall and Vacate Order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abramo v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.

Charles N. Abramo, the plaintiff, sustained injuries after falling due to a grip tab on a truck manufactured by Navistar International Transportation Corp. Navistar had prior knowledge of similar complaints and had redesigned the grip tab in later models, but no recall notices were issued for the specific truck involved. Plaintiffs sought to compel Navistar to produce recall notices for unrelated truck components and allow depositions of additional employees. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, stating that unrelated recall notices are not discoverable and that the staff engineer demonstrated sufficient knowledge, justifying the refusal for additional depositions.

Product LiabilityDiscovery DisputeRecall NoticesPretrial DepositionsTruck DefectGrip TabAppellate ReviewUnanimous DecisionSupreme Court OrderEvidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garelle v. Geinitz

Plaintiff, an employee of Total Recall, slipped and fell on an ice patch in the parking lot while on a work-sanctioned break, subsequently commencing a negligence action for personal injuries. Defendant, president and shareholder of Total Recall and property owner, moved for summary judgment asserting the complaint was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion, but the appellate court found questions of fact existed regarding whether the accident site was under the exclusive control of Total Recall. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. The order was modified to deny the defendant's summary judgment motion, while affirming the denial of plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Workers’ Compensation Law affirmative defense.

NegligenceSlip and FallIce PatchWorkers' Compensation LawCoemployee ImmunityProperty Owner LiabilitySummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewQuestions of Fact
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lalley v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

This case involves a hybrid lawsuit filed by a former employee ("Plaintiff") against his former employer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and his union, United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 2603. The Plaintiff alleged that Bethlehem breached their Collective Bargaining Agreement by recalling less senior employees to his former department after he had voluntarily taken severance. He also claimed the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to process his grievance regarding these recalls. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was untimely and lacked merit. The court determined the plaintiff's claim was timely under the six-month statute of limitations for hybrid § 301/fair representation claims. However, on the merits, the court found no genuine issues of material fact indicating that Bethlehem Steel Corporation breached the CBA, concluding that the recalls were consistent with the CBA's seniority provisions, including those for craft status employees. Consequently, as the employer's breach was not established, the court did not need to address the union's duty of fair representation claim under Vaca v. Sipes. The defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Labor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentEmployee SenioritySeverance BenefitsEmployee RecallGrievance ProcessStatute of LimitationsContract Breach
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carroll v. Provenzano

An employer and their insurance carrier appealed a Workmen's Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a bartender, was injured slipping on a public sidewalk while returning home for lunch during an unscheduled Sunday shift. The employer had directed the claimant to go home for lunch but remained subject to recall. Appellants argued this was a conventional off-premises injury, but the court found special circumstances due to the employer's direction and continuous recall, which meant employment was not interrupted. The court affirmed the Board's finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentLunch BreakSpecial CircumstancesOff-Premises InjuryEmployer ControlContinuous RecallBartenderPublic Sidewalk
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clarke v. Communications Workers of America

This lawsuit involves former employees of AT&T and members of the CWA union, who allege AT&T breached its collective bargaining agreement by improperly implementing layoffs in 1991 and a recall in 1992 based on flawed seniority lists. They also claim the CWA union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to grieve the 1992 recall. After a decade-long arbitration process, a federal district court denies all parties' motions for summary judgment. The court found unresolved factual disputes regarding the statute of limitations, laches, the exhaustion of union and contractual remedies, and the arbitrability of the union's actions, warranting a trial.

Labor LawUnion Duty of Fair RepresentationCollective BargainingEmployment LayoffsSeniority RightsArbitration ProcessStatute of Limitations DefenseLaches DefenseSummary Judgment DenialIntra-Union Remedies
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employment Commission v. E-Systems, Inc.

The Texas Employment Commission appealed a trial court's judgment that denied unemployment compensation benefits to claimants. The claimants had been laid off from E-Systems, Inc. prior to an economic strike and subsequently refused recall notices due to the ongoing picket line. The central legal issue was whether the job offers constituted 'new work' under Article 5221b-3, which would exempt claimants from disqualification for refusing suitable work. The appellate court concluded that the employer-employee relationship was severed upon layoff, making the recall offers 'new work.' Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's decision, affirming the claimants' entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits.

unemployment benefitseconomic strikelayoffrefusal to worknew work doctrinepicket linejudicial reviewappellate courtstatutory interpretationemployer-employee relationship
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamitie v. Emerson Electric Co.

This case involves three actions for personal injuries and wrongful death stemming from a propane gas explosion, allegedly caused by a defective hot water heater control valve manufactured by Emerson Electric Company — White Rodgers Division. Plaintiffs sought disclosure of documents related to the valve's recall program, including correspondence between the defendant and the Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), as well as a report evaluating the recall's effectiveness by Heiden, Pittaway Associates, Inc. The defendant resisted, asserting statutory privilege under the Consumer Product Safety Act and a common-law 'critical self-analysis privilege.' The Supreme Court compelled disclosure, issuing a protective order for trade secrets. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the Act's statutory privilege did not bar disclosure in judicial proceedings and rejecting the application of the common-law privilege in New York. The court modified the protective order to extend to public disclosure of information, except during trial.

Product LiabilityPropane ExplosionDefective ProductProduct RecallConsumer Product Safety ActDiscoveryStatutory PrivilegeCommon-Law PrivilegeCritical Self-AnalysisTrade Secrets
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1967

In re Claim of Ciganek

A claimant, a secretary, was laid off due to a strike and filed for unemployment insurance benefits. She subsequently traveled to Lansford, Pennsylvania, where she applied for various jobs. After applying for several positions, she was recalled to her former employment in New York. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that she did not make an active, diligent, and sincere effort to find employment during the period she claimed benefits, rendering her unavailable for employment. The court affirmed the board's decision.

Unemployment BenefitsAvailability for EmploymentJob Search EffortsUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAdministrative DecisionStrike LayoffNew York Labor Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ9145995
Regular
Mar 02, 2017

PEDRO SANCHEZ vs. JACK IN THE BOX, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denies Pedro Sanchez's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), giving great weight to the judge's credibility determination from observing the witness. The Board found no substantial evidence to overturn the WCJ's decision. Additionally, the WCAB admonished applicant's attorney for failing to reference exhibits, noting proper service of the Summary of Evidence and the attorney's obligation to recall their own submissions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental ProceedingsTaking Additional EvidenceWCJCredibility DeterminationSummary of EvidenceOfficial Address RecordExhibitsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Board
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 60 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