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

General Electric Co. v. New York State Department of Labor

General Electric (GE) challenged New York’s prevailing wage law (N.Y.Lab.Law § 220), seeking its invalidation and an injunction against enforcement. The court previously denied GE's preliminary injunction, but the Second Circuit vacated that decision, ruling that Section 220's "supplements" provisions were preempted by ERISA and remanding for a determination on unconstitutional delegation. Both GE and the State moved for summary judgment. The court found the wage provisions of Section 220 severable from the preempted supplement provisions and that non-ERISA supplement provisions were not implicitly preempted. GE's equal protection and delegation challenges were rejected. Consequently, GE's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted for counts one, three, four, and five of the complaint.

ERISA PreemptionNLRA PreemptionNew York Prevailing Wage LawStatutory SeverabilityUnconstitutional DelegationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionEleventh Amendment
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. State

This appeal addresses the constitutional challenges brought by trade associations representing automobile manufacturers against New York's New Car Lemon Law alternative arbitration mechanism and its implementing regulations. Plaintiffs argued that General Business Law § 198-a (k) unconstitutionally deprived manufacturers of their right to a jury trial, access to Supreme Court, and constituted an improper delegation of judicial authority. The court ruled that the Lemon Law's remedies, particularly vehicle replacement, are equitable, thus preserving the right to a jury trial. It also upheld the arbitration mechanism as a reasonable alternative for dispute resolution, affirming its constitutionality regarding court access and delegation of authority. However, the court found one implementing regulation, 13 NYCRR 300.17 (c), invalid as it contravened the statute by precluding evidence of further repairs, effectively creating an irrebuttable presumption of liability.

Constitutional LawArbitrationLemon LawConsumer ProtectionGeneral Business LawRight to Jury TrialEquitable RemediesAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State

The case concerns a challenge by home care service agencies and a trade association (petitioners) to New York's Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law § 3614-c). This law conditions Medicaid reimbursement for home health care services in the metropolitan New York area on agencies paying home care aides a minimum wage, determined by reference to New York City's Living Wage Law. Petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional due to improper delegation of legislative authority, violation of the "incorporation by reference" clause, and violation of home rule provisions. They also challenged the Department of Health's (DOH) interpretation of "total compensation." The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the respondents (DOH), and the appellate court affirmed, finding no improper delegation, no violation of the incorporation by reference clause, home rule provisions inapplicable as Medicaid is a state concern, and DOH's interpretation of "total compensation" to be rational.

Wage Parity LawHome Health Care ServicesMedicaid ReimbursementConstitutional LawLegislative AuthorityNew York City Living Wage LawHome RuleDue ProcessDepartment of HealthStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paulsen v. All American School Bus Corp.

This case addresses a motion by James G. Paulsen, Regional Director of the NLRB, along with former NLRB members Sharon Block, Richard F. Griffin, Jr., and former acting general counsel Lafe E. Solomon, to dismiss a counterclaim and third-party complaint. The counterclaim was filed by respondent bus companies who challenged the legitimacy of NLRB actions, arguing that the Board lacked a lawful quorum due to allegedly unconstitutional recess appointments. The court examined whether it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. § 1361) or Leedom v. Kyne. It concluded that judicial review for the General Counsel's prosecutorial functions is unavailable and that an adequate remedy for constitutional challenges exists through circuit court review of a final NLRB order. The court also reaffirmed that the NLRB's delegation of Section 10(j) powers to the General Counsel was valid, irrespective of quorum issues, based on prior delegations and Second Circuit precedent, and that the complaint's issuance was subsequently ratified. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss the counterclaim and third-party complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

National Labor Relations ActPreliminary InjunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionRecess Appointments ClauseMandamus ActUnfair Labor PracticesDelegation of AuthorityNLRB QuorumJudicial ReviewFederal Jurisdiction
References
28
Case No. ADJ16283940
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Dexter Haynes sought reconsideration of a November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, which denied his entitlement to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment under Rule 17302(b). Haynes argued that the rule is inconsistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and unconstitutional due to improper delegation of authority. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations contended the rule is valid and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate it. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further review the validity and consistency of Rule 17302(b) with section 139.48, deferring a final decision.

Return-to-Work SupplementRTWSRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48statutory authorityunconstitutional delegationDirector of Department of Industrial Relationsen banc decisionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

East Thirteenth Street Community Ass'n v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Petitioners, comprising local condominium boards, tenants, and residents, challenged the New York State Urban Development Corporation's (UDC) determination to acquire a lot for a homeless housing facility. They argued that UDC exceeded its statutory jurisdiction, its findings were defective, the project's funding was illegal, and its use of override powers was improper. The court affirmed UDC's determination, concluding that its actions were within its statutory authority, its findings were well-supported by the record, and the funding and override powers were appropriately exercised. Additionally, the court reviewed and upheld the Housing Finance Agency's (HFA) negative environmental declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court also dismissed claims of unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, referencing established precedents.

CondemnationEminent DomainUrban DevelopmentHomeless HousingSEQRAEnvironmental ReviewStatutory JurisdictionOverride PowersPublic PurposeBlighted Areas
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Insurance Association, Inc. v. State of New York

The New York Insurance Association, Inc. and several insurance companies challenged assessment fees levied by the Department of Financial Services (DFS) and its predecessor, arguing the inclusion of 'sub-allocated programs' costs and the transfer of unused assessment funds to the State's general fund were unconstitutional. Plaintiffs contended these were unauthorized taxes and constituted a taking of private property. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that the inclusion of sub-allocated program costs was statutorily mandated and not arbitrary. It also found that the relevant law did not unlawfully delegate taxing power and that the assessments were regulatory fees, not taxes, thus constitutional provisions were inapplicable. Furthermore, the court determined that the insurers' right to a refund or credit had not vested before the statutes authorizing the transfers were enacted, negating the takings claims.

Insurance AssessmentsRegulatory FeesState BudgetFiscal PolicyConstitutional LawTaxation PowerTakings ClauseProperty RightsDepartment of Financial ServicesNew York State
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Krmencik v. Town of Plattekill

Plaintiff, Krmencik, filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendant James Fehr, Superintendent of Highways for the Town of Plattekill, unconstitutionally deprived her and her deceased husband of property without due process. This claim stemmed from Fehr's alleged order to widen a road bordering the Krmencik's property in 1982 by taking a strip of their land without consent. The core issue was whether Fehr had final policymaking authority for road expansion, which would hold the Town of Plattekill liable under § 1983. The court found that Fehr lacked statutory authority, delegated authority from the Town Board, or established custom for eminent domain power. Consequently, his actions were deemed an unauthorized abuse of discretion, not municipal policy. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissing the federal claim and the pendent state law claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Due Process ViolationMunicipal LiabilitySection 1983 ClaimEminent DomainProperty DeprivationPolicymaking AuthoritySuperintendent of HighwaysTown BoardSummary JudgmentAbuse of Discretion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brogan v. Ford Motor Co.

In this case, a claimant, an employee of Ford Motor Company, sought benefits for occupational hearing loss, which the Workers' Compensation Board awarded based on newly adopted regulations (12 NYCRR part 351) effective October 1, 1980. Ford Motor Company appealed the board's decision, challenging the validity of these regulations and the procedures followed for their adoption. Ford contended that a public hearing was required under Labor Law § 29, that the regulations failed to account for presbycusis (age-related hearing loss), that the special committee exceeded its statutory membership limit, and that the adoption process was unconstitutional. The court rejected all of Ford's arguments, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law § 49-gg superseded the Labor Law's hearing requirement, upholding the board's discretion regarding presbycusis, confirming the committee's adherence to statutory limits, and finding that the board acted within its delegated constitutional authority. Consequently, the court affirmed the board's decisions.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationRegulatory ChallengePresbycusisLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawAdministrative ProcedureStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawDelegation of Authority
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Salamon

Defendant Yehuda Salamon moved to dismiss charges and declare Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional, arguing its vagueness regarding prohibited conduct, mens rea, and standard of proof. The People opposed, contending 'lack of due care' functions as a culpable mental state and the statute sufficiently defines prohibited conduct. The court analyzed the constitutionality of the statute, specifically the 'due care' standard, in the context of criminal liability and the requirement for mens rea. The court found that the civil tort liability standard of negligence ('due care') is inconsistent with criminal conduct's awareness requirement and creates unconstitutional vagueness. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion, finding Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional on its face and dismissing the related charges, while other charges remained.

Constitutional LawVagueness DoctrineDue ProcessCriminal NegligenceMens ReaStrict LiabilityAdministrative CodeVehicle and Traffic LawMotion to DismissPedestrian Safety
References
64
Showing 1-10 of 294 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