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

Cancel v. Mazzuca

Plaintiff Frankie Cancel, a Shi'a Muslim state prisoner, filed a civil rights action against thirty-one New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) employees, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to religious freedom and retaliation. Cancel claimed that DOCS's Islamic authorities, allegedly Sunni, discriminated against Shi'a inmates by denying separate religious services and proselytizing. The court addressed motions for partial summary judgment by Cancel and dismissal by defendants. The court dismissed most defendants and state law claims, finding that only claims against Imam Umar and Imam At-Tayeb survived dismissal for alleged direct discrimination and retaliation. It applied collateral estoppel to state court findings regarding significant doctrinal differences between Shi'a and Sunni Islam and violations of New York Correction Law § 610, but noted no preclusive effect on the federal constitutional claims. The court denied a motion to transfer venue, citing the burden of split trials.

Prisoner RightsReligious FreedomFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentCivil Rights ActionDOCS (Department of Correctional Services)Shi'a IslamSunni IslamRetaliation ClaimsQualified Immunity
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neal v. Archdioceses of New York

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Crane argues for the reversal of an order that granted summary judgment, dismissing a complaint against the Archdioceses of New York and Pius 12 Residential Services — Chester Campus Program. The core issue revolves around the defendants' alleged negligent supervision, leading to an assault where student William Cook broke Israel O'Neal's jaw. Judge Crane contends that the defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice regarding Cook's documented violent tendencies, citing extensive behavioral records. Contrary to the majority's view of an impulsive attack, the dissent details a prolonged altercation between the students, suggesting supervisory staff had ample opportunity to intervene. Therefore, the dissenting judge concludes that the motion for summary judgment should have been denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Negligent SupervisionSummary Judgment MotionDissenting OpinionSchool LiabilityStudent InjuryActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAssault and BatteryProximate CauseEducational Institutions
References
10
Case No. 07-07-0285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2008

City of San Antonio v. Michael Cancel

Michael Cancel, a former employee of the City of San Antonio, sued the City for sexual harassment by a superior, Ryan Martinez, leading to a hostile work environment. A jury awarded Cancel $90,000 in damages. The City appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence for sexual harassment and arguing that Texas law does not recognize same-sex harassment claims. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed that same-sex harassment claims are cognizable under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. However, it reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the single 20-30 minute encounter, even with prior knowledge of unrelated nude photos on Martinez's computer, was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile or abusive work environment as a matter of law.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSame-Sex HarassmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRADiscriminationEmployment LawAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyMental Anguish Damages
References
16
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07922
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2018

Matter of DeVera v. Elia

The case concerns the oversight authority for charter school prekindergarten programs under New York's Statewide Universal Full-Day Prekindergarten Program (Education Law § 3602-ee). Petitioners, including Success Academy and parents, challenged the New York City Department of Education's (DOE) contractual requirements, arguing that Education Law § 3602-ee (12) vests exclusive oversight responsibility in the charter entity. The Commissioner of Education initially sided with the DOE, allowing for shared oversight, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the "all" in subdivision (12) grants full responsibility to the charter entity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that the statutory language is unambiguous and vests exclusive oversight authority for charter school prekindergarten programs in the charter entity, thereby divesting the school district of authority to set curricular or programmatic requirements. The dissent argued that this interpretation misreads the statute and undermines the accountability framework intended by the legislature for universal pre-kindergarten programs.

Charter SchoolsPrekindergarten ProgramsEducation LawStatutory InterpretationOversight AuthoritySchool DistrictsNew York Court of AppealsUniversal Pre-K LawLegislative IntentAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed an appeal filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program against the Commissioner of Labor. The appeal sought to challenge a decision by the Industrial Board of Appeals regarding a minimum wage order for the building service industry. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to properly file a notice of appeal with the court of original instance, which was the Industrial Board of Appeals, not the Appellate Division. Additionally, the petitioner failed to timely and correctly serve the notice of appeal on the respondent's counsel at the designated address. Consequently, due to the complete failure to comply with CPLR 5515, the appeal was dismissed.

JurisdictionAppeal ProcedureService of ProcessAppellate DivisionIndustrial Board of AppealsMinimum WageLabor LawCPLRNew York CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. 142 SSM 33
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2017

The Matter of the Claim of Lidia Burgos v. Citywide Central Insurance Program

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. The decision concerned the claim of Lidia Burgos against Citywide Central Insurance Program and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division had concluded that substantial evidence supported the Workers' Compensation Board's determinations regarding the claimant's degree of impairment and loss of wage-earning capacity. The Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn this conclusion.

Workers' CompensationImpairmentWage-earning CapacitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionClaimantInsurance ProgramBoard DeterminationJudicial ReviewAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trojcak v. Valiant Millwrighting & Warehousing, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the proper cancellation of an employer's workers' compensation policy. A claimant was injured in September 1995, leading to a dispute when the carrier claimed the policy was canceled in June 1995 due to nonpayment. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled the policy was improperly canceled, citing Banking Law § 576 and estoppel. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the cancellation adhered to Banking Law § 576's notice requirements. This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the statutory notice provisions were met and that the finance agency and carrier were not estopped from canceling the policy despite prior acceptance of late payments.

Workers' Compensation Policy CancellationBanking Law § 576Estoppel DoctrineNotice RequirementsLate PaymentsInsurance Coverage DisputePolicy DefaultAppellate ReviewStatutory CompliancePremium Finance Agreement
References
7
Case No. 1:94-CV 0484
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 1995

KVHP TV PARTNERS, LTD. v. Channel 12 of Beaumont, Inc.

Plaintiffs, KVHP TV Partners, Ltd. d/b/a Fox 29 and Calcasieu Communications, Inc., filed a motion to remand their case to state court after defendants, Channel 12 of Beaumont, Inc., Texas Television Inc., Viacom International, Inc., and Multimedia Entertainment, Inc., removed it to federal court. The plaintiffs had originally sued in state court alleging tortious interference with business relations, civil conspiracy, and violations of Texas antitrust and deceptive trade practices acts. Defendants asserted federal question jurisdiction as the basis for removal. The court analyzed the well-pleaded complaint rule, the artful pleading doctrine, and the complete preemption doctrine. Finding no federal question on the face of the complaint and no applicable exceptions, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the 58th Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, and ordered Viacom International, Inc. and Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. to reimburse the plaintiffs for costs and attorneys' fees incurred due to the removal.

Federal JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionRemand to State CourtWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleArtful Pleading DoctrineComplete Preemption DoctrineFederal Antitrust LawCommunications Act of 1934Tortious InterferenceCivil Conspiracy
References
25
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halkias v. General Dynamics Corp.

The court considered the defendant, General Dynamics Corporation's, motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs, Dawn Dee Bryant, Barry Jackson, and others similarly situated. Plaintiffs sought recovery under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, alleging inadequate notice for a mass layoff in January and February 1991. The defendant argued the layoff was caused by business circumstances (cancellation of the A-12 program) that were not reasonably foreseeable, thus exempting them from the 60-day notice under 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(2)(A). The court found no genuine issue of material fact, concluding that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion was granted, and plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice, as the defendant provided as much notice as practicable under the circumstances.

WARN Actmass layoffsummary judgmentunforeseeable business circumstancesnotice requirementA-12 program cancellationemployee rightsFifth Circuitfederal courtclass action
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 2,298 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