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

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Knudsen v. Nassau County Department of Social Services

Thomas and Carol Knudsen initiated an Article 78 proceeding against the Nassau County Department of Social Services, challenging three determinations. First, the denial of emergency assistance for clothing destroyed by pinworms was challenged, with the court ruling that the county's reliance on a State regulation limiting emergency assistance was invalid. The defense was struck, and the request was remanded for re-evaluation. Second, the reduction of their Aid to Dependent Children grant in December 1973, without proper notice and opportunity for a hearing, was annulled. Third, the denial of assistance to Mr. Knudsen in January 1974, due to the department's failure to transfer his name for supplemental security income, was also addressed. The court granted judgment in favor of the petitioners, directing relief consistent with its rulings and ordering the Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services to appear and explain the department's persistent policy regarding emergency assistance limitations.

Emergency AssistanceSocial Services LawPublic AssistanceAid to Dependent ChildrenWelfare BenefitsDue ProcessFair HearingAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationNassau County DSS
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dilonez v. Fox Linen Service Inc.

Plaintiffs Angel Dilonez and others initiated an action against Fox Linen Service, Inc. and its owner George Sundel, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York labor laws for failing to pay overtime wages. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action, which defendants opposed on several grounds, including the validity of declarations and the scope of the proposed class and notification. The United States Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown granted the motion for conditional certification, finding that plaintiffs met the 'modest factual showing' required to demonstrate a common policy or plan violating the law. The court also issued detailed directives regarding the notification process, including a six-year statute of limitations for state claims, approval for Spanish translation, and posting of the notice at the defendants' workplace. The decision addressed the contents of the notice, disallowing language that might unduly discourage opt-in plaintiffs, and clarified the procedure for returning consent forms to plaintiffs' counsel.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawOvertime WagesCollective ActionConditional CertificationWage and Hour DisputeEmployment LawClass Action NoticePlaintiff's Motion Granted
References
38
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 01555
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2016

Lois v. Flintlock Construction Services, LLC

Plaintiff Jorge Lois, an employee of J&R Glassworks, Inc., sued Flintlock Construction Services, LLC and Bass Associates, LLC, after slipping and falling on a plastic tarp and broken concrete at a construction site. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss Lois's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and their contractual indemnification claim against J&R. The court denied both motions, finding issues of fact regarding Bass Associates' role as an owner, the defendants' responsibility for the hazardous condition, and the applicability of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2). Additionally, J&R failed to demonstrate an absence of factual issues concerning its notice of the hazardous condition, thereby upholding the contractual indemnification claim against it.

Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentSlip and FallThird-Party ActionOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityHazardous Condition
References
7
Case No. ADJ10717926
Regular
Aug 23, 2018

GUADALUPE SEDANO vs. GEO PACIFIC SERVICES, INC., REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INS. CO., ADMINISTERED BY BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the dismissal order because the record lacked proof of service for key notices. Applicant's case was dismissed for failing to object to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, but the Board found the applicant may not have received proper notice of crucial hearings or the dismissal notice itself. Due process requires reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, which the incomplete record here calls into question. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record on service issues.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalNotice of Intention to DismissExcusable NeglectMandatory Settlement ConferenceProof of ServiceDue ProcessGood CauseService of NoticeWCAB Rule 10500
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rivera v. Superior Laundry Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning an employer's workers' compensation policy. The claimant, initially employed by Brand Management Services, Inc. (BMS) doing business as County Agency, Inc., was injured while working for Superior Laundry Services, LLC. Guarantee Insurance Company, BMS's carrier, disputed the claim, asserting the policy did not cover Superior Laundry's direct employees and had been canceled. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed that the policy was not properly canceled due to insufficient notice. The Appellate Court reversed this decision, agreeing that cancellation notice was improper but concluding that the policy fundamentally did not provide coverage for Superior Laundry Services, LLC at the time of the claimant's accident.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PolicyPolicy CancellationCoverage DisputeProfessional Employer OrganizationAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityCarrier ResponsibilityAdditional Insured EndorsementNotice Requirements
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Echevarria v. 158th St. Riverside Drive Housing Co.

This case involves a plaintiff, an employee of Gould Services, who sustained injuries while attempting to repair a cracked terrace door in a building owned by Riverside. The plaintiff alleged that Riverside, as the building owner, had a duty to repair the door under an occupancy agreement and possessed actual or constructive notice of the defect. The motion court denied Riverside’s motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, citing triable issues of fact regarding Riverside's duty to repair, the potential modification of the occupancy agreement by prior conduct, and the notice of the defective door. Furthermore, the court granted third-party defendant Gould Services’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing Riverside’s third-party complaint for indemnification. This decision was based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as there was no 'grave injury' to the employee and no valid written indemnification agreement existed between Riverside and Gould Services.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawContractual DutyNotice of DefectSupervening CauseOccupancy AgreementThird-Party ClaimCourse of Conduct
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. AMR Services Corp.

Plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against AMR Services Corp., alleging a violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) due to the closure of its Security Department at JFK Airport. AMR sought summary judgment, contending that the number of employees experiencing an "employment loss" fell below the WARN Act's threshold, thereby negating the 60-day notice requirement. The central issue was whether 18 employees, transferred to other roles within AMR shortly after the department closure, suffered an "employment loss." The court applied a practical, effects-driven analysis, determining that these employees did not suffer an employment loss as their jobs were continuous or any interruption was less than the statutory six-month layoff period. Consequently, the court granted AMR's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion, and dismissed the case.

WARN ActEmployment LossSummary JudgmentLayoffEmployee TransferCorporate DownsizingStatutory InterpretationFederal LawWorker RightsNotification Requirements
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 9,534 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