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. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brukhman v. Giuliani

This case addresses a dispute between welfare recipients participating in New York City's Work Experience Program (WEP) and City and State social services departments. Plaintiffs, recipients of Home Relief (HR) and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC), claimed they were not receiving fair economic credit for work performed, as their hours were calculated using the Federal minimum wage instead of comparable wages for similar work. They sought class certification and a preliminary injunction. The court granted class certification and intervention for proposed plaintiffs-intervenors. It also denied the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss, ruling that administrative remedies would be futile. Ultimately, the court granted a preliminary injunction, mandating that the City defendants prospectively calculate WEP participants' hours based on the higher of the State/Federal minimum wage or the rate for comparable work by regular employees, citing Social Services Law and the New York State Constitution.

Work Experience Program (WEP)Welfare ReformPublic AssistanceHome Relief (HR)Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC)Class ActionPreliminary InjunctionWage ComparabilityMinimum Wage LawSocial Services Legislation
References
14
Case No. 2018-06-1735
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2019

Calderon-Fuentes, Leonardo v. CEVA Logistics U.S. Holdings

Leonardo Calderon-Fuentes, an employee, sought relief for injuries allegedly sustained in a forklift collision while working for CEVA Logistics U.S. Holdings. The employer disputed the claim, presenting witness testimony and evidence from forklift sensors indicating no impact occurred. The Court found Mr. Calderon-Fuentes failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, as he did not satisfy the burden of proof for a work-related accidental injury. Consequently, his requested medical and temporary disability benefits were denied. Additionally, CEVA Logistics U.S. Holdings was referred to the Compliance Program for failing to provide Mr. Calderon-Fuentes with a panel of physicians, a violation of state law.

Workers' CompensationForklift AccidentDenial of BenefitsAccident InvestigationSensor EvidencePanel of PhysiciansEmployer Non-ComplianceExpedited HearingBurden of ProofCircumstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 1997

Capers v. Giuliani

Plaintiffs, public-assistance recipients in New York City's Work Experience Program (WEP), alleged unsafe working conditions in their sanitation-related assignments, claiming violations of OSHA standards and inadequate provision of protective gear, facilities, and training. They also contended that regular City employees received more favorable treatment and a better grievance procedure. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief and class certification, while denying defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint on procedural grounds due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (Labor Law § 27-a) and the Social Services Law. The court emphasized that administrative agencies have exclusive original jurisdiction over such matters, and judicial review is only permissible after administrative channels have been exhausted. The preliminary injunction was also found to be improperly granted due to a lack of factual findings.

Work Experience Program (WEP)Public Employee Safety and Health ActExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInjunctive ReliefClass CertificationOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Labor LawSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitations
References
11
Case No. ADJ10813026
Regular
May 27, 2025

Noureddine Manser vs. Return-to-Work Supplement Program

Applicant Noureddine Manser sought reconsideration of a November 9, 2023 finding that he was not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second benefit unless for a subsequent injury. Applicant contended the word "injury" should include a continuing injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, declining to interpret "injury" as a continuing injury and noting that the validity of Rule 17302(b) is subject to judicial review in the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board. The Board also asserted its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite arguments to the contrary.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPRule 17302(b)vocational rehabilitationsubsequent injurySJDBVQMEtemporary total disabilityWCABLabor Code section 139.48
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter

This case concerns an appeal regarding a lawsuit filed by Jack Porter and his wife against Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. The plaintiffs sought 630 hours of overtime pay for Mrs. Porter, who worked as a laundress, under Article 5169 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Statutes. The defendant contended that recovery was not possible as Mrs. Porter also worked in the dry cleaning department, not exclusively the laundry. The trial court found the departments intermingled, making differentiation impossible. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the work fell under the statute but reversed the award of attorney's fees, deeming them non-recoverable.

Overtime PayLaundry IndustryDry CleaningEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesTexas Civil ProcedureAppeal DecisionWorker Classification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. Stanley Works, Inc.

Antonio Alonso sued his employer, The Stanley Works, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge after his employment was terminated while on medical leave for a work-related injury, claiming it was due to his workers' compensation claim. Stanley Works moved for summary judgment, asserting Alonso was terminated under a uniformly enforced six-month leave of absence policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Alonso failed to provide evidence that his termination would not have occurred but for his workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLeave of Absence PolicyUniform EnforcementTexas Labor CodeEmployment TerminationAbsence Control PolicyAppellate ReviewWorkplace Injury
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Case No. Docket No. 406
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2005

Frew v. Hawkins

This civil action, initiated in 1993, addresses the alleged failure of the State of Texas to implement a Medicaid program, specifically the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program, for indigent children. A Consent Decree was approved in 1996 to ensure compliance, with the court retaining jurisdiction. Defendants subsequently filed a Rule 60(b) motion in November 2004, seeking either complete dissolution of the Consent Decree or its partial dissolution for urban areas, citing compliance with federal law and changed circumstances. Following a June 2005 hearing, the Court evaluated evidence concerning medical checkups, dental services, outreach efforts, and case management. The Court concluded that Defendants failed to demonstrate significant changed factual circumstances, that the proposed relief was suitably tailored, or that reasonable efforts were made to comply with the decree's obligations. Consequently, Defendants' Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief From Judgment was DENIED, affirming the continued prospective application of the Consent Decree.

Medicaid Program EnforcementEPSDT ServicesConsent Decree ModificationRule 60(b) MotionHealth Care AccessIndigent Children's HealthManaged Care PerformanceState Compliance IssuesOutreach EffectivenessDental Care Access
References
27
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 11,936 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