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 18, 2003

In re the Claim of Burdick

The claimant, a model builder for Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc. in Rochester, Monroe County, voluntarily participated in a retirement incentive program and separated from employment on November 1, 2002. Valeo had filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and was approved to move its compressor production operations to Mexico, leading to a reduction in its labor force. Following his separation, the claimant applied for a trade readjustment allowance under the federal Trade Act of 1974. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his application, ruling that his separation was for a reason other than lack of work. The appeal ensued, and the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it rational based on testimony that the claimant had sufficient seniority and would not have been among those involuntarily eliminated had he not elected the incentive program.

Trade Readjustment AllowanceUnemployment BenefitsVoluntary SeparationSeniorityBankruptcyWorkforce ReductionAppellate ReviewTrade Act of 1974Employment LawNew York State
References
5
Case No. ADJ767870 (LAO 0816816) ADJ1415110 (VNO 0526399)
Regular
Mar 21, 2011

EVELYN PIERRE vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; Legally Uninsured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision, upholding the denial of a second penalty for unreasonably delayed permanent disability indemnity. The applicant sought two separate Labor Code section 5814 penalties, but the Board found the employer's failure to pay indemnity and the related section 4650(d) penalty constituted a single continuous act of non-payment, not separate and distinct acts as required by *Christian v. WCAB*. Additionally, the petition for reconsideration was denied for failing to include proof of service and notice of the applicant's right to independent counsel.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDENYING RECONSIDERATIONLab. Code§ 5814permanent disability indemnityLab. Code§ 4650(d)unreasonably delayedseparate and distinct actsattorney's fee
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carmille A. v. David A.

In this Family Court Act article 8 family offense proceeding, the petitioner filed a supplemental petition alleging the respondent willfully violated a modified order of protection on two separate occasions in March 1994. The court found these violations and civilly committed the respondent to consecutive terms of incarceration totaling ten months. The respondent moved for reargument, citing the appellate authority of Matter of Vitti v Vitti, which held that Family Court Act article 8 prohibits consecutive commitments exceeding a total of six months. The presiding judge, Guy P. De Phillips, disagreed with the Vitti ruling, asserting that legislative history and public policy regarding domestic violence support the imposition of consecutive civil commitments for distinct violations, even if the cumulative term exceeds six months, provided they are separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes. Consequently, the court denied the respondent's motion for reargument, affirming its authority to impose such consecutive sentences.

Family LawDomestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionContempt of CourtCivil CommitmentConsecutive SentencesFamily Court ActStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormack v. IBM

Plaintiffs John McCormack, Mark Lingl, and Ron Shelton filed an Amended Complaint against International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). They claim IBM engaged in discriminatory practices by terminating older employees under the guise of 'resource actions' and then replacing them with younger, recent college graduates. Defendant IBM moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that two of the plaintiffs, Shelton and Lingl, had signed separation agreements containing waivers of claims. The Court denied IBM's motion, finding that factual issues remained regarding whether the separation agreements complied with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) and whether the plaintiffs were fraudulently induced into signing them due to IBM's alleged misrepresentations about its workforce 'streamlining.' The court determined that discovery was necessary to resolve these factual disputes concerning the validity of the waivers for both federal and state law claims.

Age DiscriminationADEANYSHRLOWBPAMotion for Judgment on the PleadingsFraudulent InducementWaiverClass ActionEmployment LawWorkforce Reduction
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2012

In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in a securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation (BofA) concerning alleged misstatements and omissions related to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The claims were brought under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The Court, presided over by District Judge P. Kevin Castel, granted the motion to certify all proposed classes, including those for 1934 Act claims, 1933 Act claims, and purchasers of January 2011 call options. The Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding the merits of the Section 14(a) claim, the rebuttable presumptions of reliance, and the scope of the class definitions. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP were appointed as class counsel.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 23 CertificationPredominance RequirementNumerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality RequirementAdequacy of RepresentationSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Feller

The case involves a petitioner's motion to stay arbitration proceedings initiated by respondents under a collective bargaining agreement. The petitioner argues the agreement's provisions for sick benefit and vacation holiday fund payments violate the Taft-Hartley Act (Labor Management Relations Act, 1947). The court addresses the applicability of the Act to the petitioner and the agreement's effective date, determining these issues are moot if the provisions are legal. The court finds the sick benefit fund contributions legal due to a grandfather clause. Regarding the vacation-holiday fund, the court interprets the Act liberally, concluding that contributions to a separate, but associated, vacation fund are also legal despite a literal reading. Consequently, the motion to stay arbitration is denied.

Taft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration StayLabor Management Relations ActSick Benefit FundVacation Holiday FundInterstate CommerceContract LegalityStatutory InterpretationFederal Labor Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Summit Construction Services Group, Inc. v. ACT Abatement, LLC

Plaintiff, a general contractor named Summit, sued its subcontractor, ACT Abatement, LLC, and insurance brokers Allen Freeman, Scott Handwerger, and A. Logan Insurance Brokerage for fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleged that the insurance brokers provided inaccurate certificates of insurance, leading Summit to believe ACT had valid workers' compensation coverage. Two ACT employees were injured while uninsured, forcing Summit to cover their claims and incur increased insurance premiums. The court found that the disclaimers on the certificates of insurance made it unreasonable for Summit to rely on them as proof of coverage. Therefore, the motions for summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint by the defendant insurance brokers were granted, dismissing the claims against them.

Fraudulent MisrepresentationInsurance Broker LiabilityWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentCertificate of InsuranceDisclaimer ClauseNegligent MisrepresentationGeneral ContractorSubcontractorInsurance Coverage Lapse
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 1978

In re Mycuta A.

This case involves a juvenile respondent who admitted to acts constituting assault in the third degree. A dispositional hearing was held in Bronx County Family Court to determine the applicability of amendments to Family Court Act Section 756, which became effective on September 1, 1978. The court addressed two primary legal questions: first, whether the revised one-year maximum initial placement for misdemeanor acts applied, and second, whether the provisions for direct placement into a secure facility by the Family Court were applicable. The court ruled that both amended provisions applied to the respondent, as the adjudication occurred after the amendment's effective date. Consequently, the respondent was placed with the Division for Youth for one year, with the Division authorized to place her directly into a secure facility if deemed appropriate.

Juvenile DelinquencyFamily Court ActPlacementSecure FacilityMisdemeanorEx Post FactoStatutory InterpretationDivision for YouthBronx County Family CourtDispositional Hearing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Opn. No.

This legal opinion addresses whether cost-of-living adjustments paid by the New York City Transit Authority (TA) to its employees, represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), are subject to suspension under the wage freeze provisions of the Financial Emergency Act for the City of New York. The Act, enacted in 1975 to address the city's fiscal crisis, includes the TA as a 'covered organization' whose salary and wage increases are suspended. The opinion concludes that cost-of-living adjustments constitute 'salary or wages' based on common interpretation and legal precedents. Therefore, the opinion holds that such payments by the TA would violate the Act's wage freeze mandate, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent the city's financial collapse.

Wage freezeCost-of-living adjustmentsFinancial Emergency ActNew York City fiscal crisisPublic employeesCollective bargainingStatutory interpretationEmergency powersGovernmental entitiesEconomic stabilization
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,290 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