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

In re the Arbitration between Fay & Signal-Stat Corp.

This case involves a dispute stemming from a stipulation made on August 7, 1952, between a petitioner (union) and a respondent (employer). The stipulation concerned the reinstatement of an employee named Pagan on probation in the employer's screw driver department. It was agreed that if Pagan's production fell below a certain standard, the matter would be submitted to arbitration. On December 18, 1952, the employer demanded arbitration regarding their right to discharge Pagan for non-compliance with the stipulation. The petitioner appealed an order denying a motion to stay arbitration. The court affirmed the order, stating that the August 7, 1952, stipulation did not intend to limit the arbitrator's authority, allowing the arbitrator to determine the resolution of the dispute, which could include Pagan's transfer or discharge.

arbitrationunionemployeremployeestipulationdischargeprobationproduction disputearbitrator authorityappeal
References
1
Case No. ADJ749878 (ANA 0384761)
Regular
Dec 15, 2010

ENRIQUE GUTIERREZ vs. FRANCISCO ORDONEZ, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) sought reconsideration of an award based on stipulated facts concerning an industrial injury to applicant. The Board granted reconsideration because there was no proof that the alleged uninsured employer was properly served with notice of the stipulations and the WCJ's intention to issue an award. The employer was not afforded the statutorily required time to object before the award was issued. Consequently, the Board rescinded the award and returned the case for further proceedings, emphasizing proper service and objection periods.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations With Request For AwardLabor Code section 3715(e)Notice of Intention to Approve StipulationsProof of ServiceAlleged Uninsured EmployerRescind AwardDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Stewart's Marketing Corp.

In a workers’ compensation case, the self-insured employer appealed an interlocutory decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that denied a request to review a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's (WCLJ) decision. The WCLJ had not approved a proposed stipulation for permanent partial disability and continued the case for further testimony and medical depositions, despite the employer’s arguments for approval and removal of the WCLJ for alleged prejudgment. The Board found the stipulation invalid and within its discretion to disregard, upholding the WCLJ's actions. The appellate court dismissed the employer's appeal, ruling it was interlocutory and did not resolve all substantive issues, thus not being appealable until a final Board decision is rendered.

Workers' CompensationAppeal DismissalInterlocutory OrderStipulationPermanent DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardWCLJ AuthorityCross-Examination RightsProcedural IssuesJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ2984143 (LBO 0340645) MF ADJ3946341 (LBO 0340644) ADJ896223 (LBO 0340643)
Regular
Jun 26, 2012

FERNANDO GUZMAN vs. ACU-AIR CARGO, LLC, PARSONS TRANSPORTATION, LLC, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the WCJ's decision that barred the applicant's claims due to the employer's bankruptcy. The Board clarified that a bankruptcy discharge injunction does not prevent a WCAB proceeding if the goal is to collect from a collateral source like the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEF), not the discharged bankrupt employer personally. Relying on *In Re Munoz*, the Board held that a WCAB proceeding can continue to establish an award against the bankrupt employer, which is a necessary precursor for the UEF to pay. Therefore, the applicant may proceed with their claims before the WCAB, provided they stipulate they are not seeking personal recovery from the bankrupt employer.

UEFbankruptcy discharge injunctioncollateral sourcesubstantial shareholderLabor Code section 3717.1uninsured employerproof of claimautomatic staynondischargeable debtMunoz
References
14
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1991

Krajas v. Chevy Pontiac Canada Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a self-insured employer's responsibility for a claim. The Board exercised its continuing jurisdiction, despite the case being previously closed. A letter from the claimant’s attorney, submitted after the closing date, was deemed a valid application for compensation, alerting the employer to ongoing proceedings. The Board concluded that this application prevented the employer from being relieved of responsibility under Workers’ Compensation Law §25-a. The application was also found to be filed within the stipulated time limits. The court affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationContinuing JurisdictionReduced Earnings AwardApplication for CompensationSelf-Insured EmployerStatutory Time LimitsBoard DecisionAppealReopened CasesClaimant Rights
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a June 16, 2009, determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB's determination reversed an earlier administrative law judge's decision, finding that the NYCTA had committed an improper labor practice by unilaterally implementing new standards for off-duty secondary employment without negotiating with the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100. PERB directed the NYCTA to make whole certain employees and subsequently filed a cross-petition to enforce its order. The court found that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that an employer's restriction on nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the NYCTA's petition, dismissed the proceeding on the merits, and granted PERB's cross-petition for enforcement of its remedial order.

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 11,126 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