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

World Trading Corp. v. Kolchin

The plaintiff sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from arbitrating disputes, arguing that the defendant union's change in affiliation from the American Federation of Labor to the Committee for Industrial Organization, along with a name change, altered its legal entity and invalidated their contract. The court disagreed, holding that a union's identity, structure, operation, constitution, by-laws, officers, and membership remain the same despite changes in affiliation and name. The court affirmed that such changes do not affect the union's rights or responsibilities under existing contracts. Therefore, the court found no basis to support the plaintiff's contention.

union affiliationarbitration disputeinjunctioncontract validityorganizational identitylabor lawname changelegal entitytrade unionsAmerican Federation of Labor
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bright v. Le Moyne College

The plaintiff, a former custodian at Le Moyne College, sued Le Moyne and her union, Teamsters Local 317, alleging sex and racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She claimed adverse employment actions including a shift change, being compelled to punch in for lunch breaks, exclusion from social events, co-workers being instructed not to speak to her, and ignored incident reports, ultimately leading to constructive discharge. The court found that her shift change did not constitute an adverse employment action and that Le Moyne had appropriate procedures for addressing her complaints. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Title VII claim against the Union due to the plaintiff's failure to name it in her EEOC charge. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentDuty of Fair RepresentationEEOC ComplaintPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionShift Rotation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joslyn v. Oneida County Sheriff's Department

Decedent, an Operations Lieutenant for the Oneida County Sheriffs Department, suffered a severe myocardial infarction in 1992 after a stressful shift change from day to night. He subsequently lived in a neurovegetative state for four years before dying in 1996 from congestive heart failure. Workers’ compensation claims for both lifetime and death benefits were filed. Medical testimony, including that of an impartial medical specialist, linked the work-related stress from the shift change as a significant contributing factor to his heart attack and subsequent death, despite other pre-existing conditions. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits, a decision upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer appealed, contending insufficient proof of an "accident" or causal relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the fatal heart attack was causally related to decedent's employment.

Workers' Compensation AppealWork-related StressMyocardial InfarctionShift ChangeCausationCompensable DeathAppellate AffirmationEmployer ResponsibilityMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Difilippo v. Edison

A claimant, residing in New York City and injured in the Bronx, sought to change the venue of his workers' compensation hearings from Manhattan to White Plains, Westchester County, citing convenience. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board denied this request, finding that the claimant failed to provide sufficient justification or evidence for the change, as required by Board rules. Additionally, the Board assessed a $250 penalty against the claimant's attorney for seeking review without reasonable grounds under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision in its entirety, upholding both the denial of the venue change and the imposition of the attorney penalty.

Workers' Compensation LawVenue ChangeAttorney SanctionAppellate ReviewAdministrative DecisionBurden of ProofProcedural RulesSufficiency of EvidenceNew York Labor LawJudicial Authority
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Bank v. Village of Tuckahoe

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability for a claimant's left knee injury shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 2005, and compensation benefits were paid until June 20, 2005. In April 2012, a physician requested an MRI, which was performed and revealed a meniscal tear. Subsequently, surgery was authorized and performed in July 2012. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator sought to shift liability to the Special Fund, a move initially rejected by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge but later approved by the Board. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the case was not "truly closed" after the MRI request was approved. The court held that the case was reopened in April 2012, within the statutory seven-year period from the date of injury, thus precluding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened Case DoctrineMedical Treatment AuthorizationCase Closure DeterminationSeven-Year RuleLast Payment of CompensationMeniscal TearMRI AuthorizationSurgery Authorization
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wiltsie v. Owens Corning Fiberglass

Claimant suffered a compensable low back injury in 1995, continuing work with restrictions and ADA accommodations. In 2003, the employer's decision to change his shift caused claimant stress, leading his primary physician to diagnose chest pain syndrome, agoraphobia, and depression, and advise him to stop working. Initially awarded benefits for a period, the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently denied further benefits, concluding that claimant's departure from work was for reasons unrelated to his back disability. Claimant appealed, contending his back injury prevented him from the new shift, but the Board's determination, supported by other evidence, found he left due to stress from the shift dispute rather than his back condition. The Board's decision, which included an assessment of claimant's testimony and medical evidence, was affirmed, as it was supported by credible evidence.

Low Back InjuryAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Workplace AccommodationShift Schedule ChangeStress-Related IllnessChest Pain SyndromeAgoraphobiaDepression DiagnosisCredibility of Medical OpinionPermanent Partial Disability
References
5
Case No. 01 Civ. 2835
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Eastchester Union Free School District

Oswald Johnson, a 69-year-old cleaner, sued the Eastchester Union Free School District for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after his job location and hours were changed. The school district moved for summary judgment, arguing Johnson failed to establish an adverse employment action or an inference of discrimination. The court found that mere inconvenience from a lateral transfer and shift change, without a reduction in wages or altered job responsibilities, does not constitute a materially adverse employment action. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence did not support an inference of age discrimination, as other employees of varying ages also experienced job assignment changes, and the decision-maker was also over 40. The court also found the mandatory physical examination, which revealed Johnson's cataracts, was job-related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the court granted summary judgment to the Eastchester Union Free School District, dismissing the complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionDisparate TreatmentADEALateral TransferShift ChangePhysical ExaminationPrima Facie Case
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2005

Collins v. Glenwood Management Corp.

Plaintiff Lance Collins, injured at a Manhattan construction site, initiated an action in Bronx County based on claimed residency. Defendants moved to change venue to Orange County, presenting evidence like DMV records and an affidavit from a Bronx building owner suggesting Collins resided in Orange County. Plaintiffs opposed, offering tax returns and affidavits asserting Bronx residency, and arguing the defendants' motion was untimely. The IAS court initially denied the venue change, deeming it untimely. However, the appellate court reversed, finding the defendants' motion timely given the conflicting evidence on Collins' residency, and remanded the case for a hearing to resolve these factual disputes.

VenueChange of VenueResidency DisputeAppellate DivisionBronx CountyOrange CountyCivil ProcedureCPLRCredibilityFactual Issues
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1992

Kudelski v. 450 Lexington Venture

Plaintiff, a laborer, was injured during the course of his employment at a construction project. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motion and third-party cross-motions to change venue from Bronx County to Queens County. Additionally, summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint against Big Apple Wrecking Corp. (Big Apple) and S&H Bricksales Corporation (S&H) on the grounds that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy against them. This was based on findings that S&H functioned as either an alter ego or a joint venturer of Big Apple, sharing employees, equipment, supervisors, offices, officers, directors, and stockholders. The appellate court unanimously affirmed both the change of venue and the dismissal of the complaint, upholding the application of the Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity provisions.

Exclusive RemedyVenue TransferSummary Judgment DismissalCorporate Alter EgoJoint EmploymentConstruction Site InjuryAppellate AffirmationLabor Law ExclusivityThird-Party LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ8750816
Regular
Jul 31, 2014

KAMIKA BEASLEY vs. SECURITAS, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, reversing the prior denial of a change of venue. The applicant demonstrated good cause by residing in Vallejo, her injury occurring in Sacramento, and no longer having an attorney in the original Anaheim venue. Therefore, the case venue was changed to the Oakland district office, and the trial was continued.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgePetition to Change VenuePetition for Change of VenueGood CauseMandatory Settlement ConferenceApplication for Adjudication of ClaimIndustrial Injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,221 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