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

Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Houghton

This case concerns a petition to annul a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights, which had found that the petitioner, an employer, discriminated against an employee (complainant-respondent) based on age. The Supreme Court, New York County, transferred the petition, which was subsequently granted. The court annulled the Division's determination, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of age discrimination. The record indicated that the complainant was terminated due to a failure to meet sales quotas and performance expectations, rather than age-related reasons. Evidence presented highlighted that a younger predecessor was also terminated for poor performance, the complainant's performance was significantly worse than her peers, she was hired at age 53, and the workplace had a diverse age demographic with older, high-performing employees.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSales PerformanceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawHuman Rights LawExecutive LawEvidentiary StandardsBurden of ProofAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2004

LoPrete v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case concerns a petitioner's employment termination pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The petitioner, a motor vehicle operator, was injured on duty and granted a one-year leave of absence, which was briefly extended. However, the petitioner exceeded the authorized absence by six additional days, thereby forfeiting the right to reinstatement, consistent with Matter of Allen v Howe. A CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul this termination was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. This denial was subsequently and unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, which also found the Workers’ Compensation Board's determination irrelevant to the reinstatement issue.

Employment TerminationCivil Service LawLeave of AbsenceReinstatement RightsCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation IrrelevanceUnauthorized AbsenceAppellate AffirmanceNew York Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 1993

Thomas v. Abate

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment denying the petition of a probationary correction officer seeking to annul her termination and reinstatement with back pay. The petitioner was terminated due to extensive absenteeism, having accrued 376 sick days in 26 months, and departmental medical personnel deemed her medically unfit for full duty. The court found the termination was not arbitrary, capricious, or made in bad faith, and that the petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court upheld this decision, emphasizing that extensive absences and physical incapacity are valid, good-faith bases for terminating a probationary employee without a hearing.

Probationary employmentemployee terminationabsenteeismmedical unfitnessNew York City Department of Correctionadministrative appealjudicial reviewgood faithbad faithreinstatement
References
8
Case No. ADJ15495436
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

Calvin Grigsby vs. Grigsby and Associates, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered two petitions from the applicant, Calvin Grigsby: a December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal, and a December 24, 2024 Petition for Removal. The Board dismissed the reconsideration aspect of the December 9th petition as it pertained to non-final orders and denied removal, finding no demonstration of irreparable harm. The subsequent December 24th petition was also dismissed as it challenged the same December 4, 2024 orders. The Board also noted the applicant's failure to comply with page limits for the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNonfinal OrdersLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental Pleadings
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ditaranto v. State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner sought to annul a determination by the State Division of Human Rights, which dismissed her complaint of employment termination based on sex and pregnancy discrimination due to a finding of no probable cause. The court dismissed the petition and confirmed the Division's order, concluding there was no support for the claim of discrimination. The decision highlighted the petitioner's record of repeated absences and unsatisfactory attitude, which predated her pregnancy, and the employer's existing policy regarding excessive absences. Despite the petitioner's claim of no warning, the court found that an employee manual, which she acknowledged receiving, outlined disciplinary actions for such conduct. A dissenting opinion argued for further investigation, emphasizing the possibility of subtle discrimination given the petitioner was the employer's first pregnant employee and was terminated without a direct warning.

Employment TerminationPregnancy DiscriminationAdministrative ReviewNo Probable Cause FindingAbsenteeism Policy ViolationEmployee Manual AcknowledgmentDisparate Treatment AllegationHuman Rights LawJudicial ReviewSufficiency of Investigation
References
8
Case No. ADJ7768905
Regular
Sep 13, 2016

TRACEY LOMBARDI vs. SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition, which sought disqualification of the administrative law judge, removal, and reconsideration. The disqualification petition was denied as untimely, filed after the swearing of the first witness. The removal petition failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Finally, the reconsideration petition was dismissed because it did not seek review of a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5311Appeals Board Rule 10452Untimely PetitionExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ3808038 (LAO 0819022)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

NICOLAS F. BENINKOFF (Deceased), LORENA BENINKOFF (Widow) vs. DARCO METAL SURFACING, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied petitions for removal and reconsideration from lien claimants and the defendant, and denied the applicant's reconsideration petition. Lien claimants Kan and Ace's petition for removal was denied as they failed to show substantial prejudice, and their reconsideration petition was dismissed as the prior order was not final. The applicant's reconsideration petition was denied because her claim for home healthcare services was deemed an untimely lien claim under Labor Code section 4903.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationLien ClaimantsUntimely LienLabor Code section 4903.5Labor Code section 5405Home Healthcare ServicesMedical TreatmentTransportation Expenses
References
5
Case No. SBR 0271963; SBR 0247442; SBR 0247444; SBR 0247445; VNO 0299465; LAO 0761513; LAO 0761514; LAO 0761515; LAO 0761516; LAO 0761517; LAO 0761518; LAO 0761519; LAO 0761520; LAO 0761521; LAO 0761522; LAO 0761523; LAO 0761524; LAO 0761525; LAO 0761526; LAO 0761527; LAO 0761528; LAO 0761529; LAO 0761530
Regular
Dec 10, 2007

EDAR Y. ROGLER vs. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. JOHNSON; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed an attorney's petition seeking to remove or disqualify Judge Kacey Joseph Keating from presiding over her cases. The WCAB found the petition for removal procedurally improper and the petition for automatic reassignment untimely, as prior hearings involving the judge had occurred. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the disqualification petition because the applicant failed to provide legally sufficient grounds or a required affidavit.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for Automatic ReassignmentPetition for DisqualificationWCJLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452Code of Civil Procedure Section 641Attorney Applicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ6861886
Regular
Feb 01, 2012

Tracy Huiras vs. Nestle USA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration, disqualification, and removal concerning a WCJ's order compelling a claims adjuster to testify at a lien trial. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the order was not final. While the petition for disqualification was denied due to insufficient evidence of bias, the petition for removal was granted. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order compelling witness testimony, as the lien claimant bears the burden of proof and must produce their own witnesses.

WCABRemovalDisqualificationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJLien ClaimClaims AdjusterPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationPetition for Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ8381778
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

GERALD BROWN vs. GOLDEN GATE PETROLEUM, LIBERTY MUTUAL

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Gerald Brown, filed a Petition for Removal and a Petition for Disqualification against Golden Gate Petroleum and Liberty Mutual. The defendants subsequently withdrew both petitions after entering into a Compromise and Release agreement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both petitions as moot, as they were withdrawn and the settlement was approved by the WCJ. Therefore, no further action will be taken on the dismissed petitions.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8381778mootwithdrawn petitionsdismissaladministrative law judge
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,325 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