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

New York State Correctional Officer & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Elsie Pierre, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury in May 2004, leading to workers’ compensation leave. Respondent Department of Correctional Services initiated termination proceedings, but a medical evaluation by respondent's designated physician on September 15, 2005, found her unfit for duty. Pierre's physician, Sanford Wert, later cleared her for work on June 12, 2006, a finding supported by a Hearing Officer who recommended reinstatement with retroactive pay. Respondent, however, rejected the full retroactive award, granting pay only from October 12, 2007, arguing that Pierre had not properly exhausted administrative remedies for the earlier date and that an independent evaluation was lacking. Petitioners challenged this limited retroactive pay, but the Court confirmed the respondent's determination, dismissing the petition and upholding the October 12, 2007, start date for back pay.

Workers' Compensation LeaveRetroactive Back PayCivil Service LawAdministrative ReviewFitness for DutyMedical Evaluation DisputeCorrection Officer EmploymentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial DiscretionAppellate Court Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarco Industries v. Angello

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioners challenged a determination that they failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements. Petitioners, contractors for a project at Cornell University, were found by a Hearing Officer to have underpaid 10 workers and paid apprentice wages to unregistered apprentices. Crucially, they willfully underpaid Nathan McGeever by paying him an an apprentice rate while he worked without journeyman supervision, thereby entitling him to be paid at the higher journeyman rate. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that petitioners knew or should have known they were violating Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the court confirmed the determination, dismissed the petition, and upheld the 20% civil penalty imposed.

prevailing wagesapprentice wagesLabor Law § 220willfulnessCPLR Article 78judicial reviewcivil penaltyconstruction contractjourneyman supervisionunderpayment
References
8
Case No. ADJ3863871
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

JAMES COUCH vs. CITY OF VALLEJO

This case concerns an applicant police officer's entitlement to Labor Code section 4850 benefits. The applicant sought reconsideration, arguing he was owed an additional period of benefits beyond the one-year maximum, as he did not receive full daily pay for part of the period. The Board denied reconsideration, reaffirming that the one-year limit for section 4850 benefits, calculated from the commencement date, was correctly applied. The defendant's request regarding attorney's fees was also deemed waived due to not being raised in a prior petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 4850Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPolice OfficerPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentLeave of Absence Without Loss of SalaryTemporary Disability Indemnity
References
3
Case No. ADJ8010054
Regular
Feb 18, 2016

REBECCA GAGE vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior ruling that disability pension advances under Labor Code section 4850.4 constitute "compensation" subject to penalties for unreasonable delay. The Board held that these advances are distinct from workers' compensation benefits and are administered through a separate system, thus not triggering Labor Code section 5814 penalties. This decision aligns with prior rulings regarding similar special benefits for public safety officers under section 4850. Consequently, any unreasonable delay in paying these advances is not subject to a penalty.

Labor Code section 4850.4disability pension advancescompensationLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814penaltyremovalreconsiderationdeputy sheriffCounty of Sacramento
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1996

Eymer v. Ground Round, Inc.

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Eymer and Patrick Lappin sued The Ground Round, Inc. and its Severance Pay Plan, asserting claims under ERISA for denied severance pay, breach of contract for unpaid vacation days, and age discrimination for Eymer. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on multiple claims. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on Claims 3 and 8 but denied it for the remaining ERISA severance pay, breach of contract for vacation pay, and age discrimination claims. The court found material issues of fact existed regarding the arbitrary and capricious nature of the severance pay denial, disputes over vacation pay policy application, and a potential discriminatory animus concerning age, warranting further proceedings.

ERISAAge DiscriminationBreach of ContractSeverance PayVacation PaySummary Judgment MotionConflict of Interest PolicyEmployment LawEmployee BenefitsArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
17
Case No. FRE 0212901
Regular
Jul 23, 2008

JANETTA SCONIERS vs. COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

The applicant, Janetta Sconiers, has been declared a vexatious litigant and ordered to pay a $1,000 sanction. This decision stems from her repeated filing of frivolous and duplicative petitions to disqualify the judge and set aside prior orders, despite previous admonitions and sanctions. Consequently, her future filings will require approval from the presiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge.

Vexatious LitigantPropria PersonaWCJ DisqualificationFrivolous PleadingsBad Faith ConductSanctionsDuplicative FilingsAffirmative ReliefWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5813
References
3
Case No. ADJ237189 (RIV 0058701)
Regular
May 22, 2009

DONALD K. SMITH vs. CITY OF SANTA ANA

This case concerns an applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration regarding appellate costs and attorney's fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, which had affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the heart and prostate but barred the skin cancer claim due to the statute of limitations. The Board ordered the applicant's attorney to reimburse the applicant $390 improperly solicited and received, while ordering the defendant to pay appellate costs of $382.79 upon confirmation of the reimbursement. The Board declined to increase the attorney's fee, finding it already exceeded typical ranges and that the attorney had not demonstrated entitlement to more.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemittiturStatute of LimitationsSkin CancerHeart InjuryProstate CancerPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeAppellate Costs
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Field v. Trump

The case is a putative class action concerning a leveraged buy-out of Pay 'n Save Corporation. The plaintiff alleged violations of federal securities laws, RICO, and state common law. Specifically, Count I claimed that an unlawful premium was paid to Stroum and Sloan during a tender offer, violating Section 14(d)(7) and Rule 10b-13. Count II alleged breach of fiduciary duty and non-disclosure under federal securities laws. Count III accused defendants of a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no tender offer in effect for Count I, that Count II failed to state a federal securities claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and that Count III did not sufficiently allege a "pattern" of racketeering activity as the acts constituted a single, non-ongoing scheme. Pendent state law claims were dismissed, and leave to replead was denied.

Federal Securities LawsRICOLeveraged Buy-OutTender OfferClass ActionMotion to DismissRule 10b-13Williams ActBreach of Fiduciary DutyRacketeering Activity
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,566 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