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
Dec 23, 1991

Babcock v. Frank

Babcock, a thirty-seven-year-old woman, sued Postmaster General Anthony Frank under Title VII, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. She claimed her immediate supervisor, Anthony Musso, sexually harassed her after their consensual relationship ended, and that the USPS retaliated against her for filing complaints by denying a promotion and imposing sick leave restrictions. Babcock also cited a hostile work environment due to isolated incidents and eventually resigned, asserting constructive discharge. The court found that Babcock was a victim of sexual harassment but concluded the USPS responded appropriately and promptly to all complaints. It determined there was no discriminatory animus in promotion decisions, the alleged hostile environment incidents were insufficient, and the working conditions did not constitute constructive discharge, leading to the dismissal of her complaint.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIIDiscriminationEmployee DisciplineWorkplace ConductUS Postal ServiceSupervisor Misconduct
References
13
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05734; CV-24-1563
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2025

Matter of Babcock v. Village of Walton

Frederick Babcock, a police officer, sought disability benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c after being diagnosed with PTSD stemming from a fatal shooting incident in October 2021. His application was denied by the Village of Walton as untimely, despite an arbitrator recommending otherwise. Babcock challenged this denial in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition, finding the Village's determination not improper. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found that Supreme Court erred in not transferring the proceeding and, on the merits, determined that the Village's denial was not supported by substantial evidence, concluding that Babcock demonstrated good cause for a minor delay in his application. The judgment was reversed, the determination annulled, the petition granted, and the matter remitted.

PTSDDisability BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cPolice OfficerTimeliness of ApplicationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR article 78Administrative Determination ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1995

Babcock v. Cae-Link Corp.

William Babcock, a 57-year-old employee, sued CAE-Link Corporation for age discrimination under the ADEA and New York Human Rights Law after being laid off during a company restructuring. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the layoff was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court found Babcock presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case and show that the defendant's reasons could be a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, the court largely denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on the age discrimination claims, allowing the case to proceed. However, punitive damages and breach of contract claims were dismissed, and plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was granted, while the motion to compel discovery was denied.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationADEANew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentReduction in ForcePretextLiquidated DamagesPunitive Damages
References
27
Case No. ADJ4455621 (AHM 0086346)
Regular
May 14, 2014

ALVIN CAVALIER vs. BABCOCK & WILCOX; ACE USA, Administered By ESIS, INC.

This case involves Alvin Cavalier's workers' compensation claim against Babcock & Wilcox and its administrator, ACE USA. Cavalier petitioned for reconsideration of a prior decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB has denied Cavalier's petition, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge and incorporating it into their order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportdeny reconsiderationAlvin CavalierBabcock & WilcoxACE USAESISInc.ADJ4455621
References
0
Case No. ADJ7093760
Regular
Apr 26, 2019

AMINTA CANALES vs. RAMONA'S FOOD GROUP, CALIFORNIA CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant, Ramona's Food Group, sought removal from an order requiring Dr. Katrina Spears Babcock to appear at trial. The defendant argued it would suffer irreparable harm and that the sole issue was the timeliness of the utilization review. However, the WCJ deferred the issue of Dr. Babcock's subpoena until jurisdiction was established, rendering the removal petition moot. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalUtilization ReviewSubpoenaWCJAppeals BoardIrreparable HarmMootJurisdictionOrder to AppearDefendant
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCaffrey v. James L. Lewis, Inc.

The petitioner, a pipefitter, sustained injuries due to asbestos exposure and settled a claim with Babcock & Wilcox for $3,500 without the consent of workers' compensation carriers. Initially, a WCLJ ruled consent was unnecessary, but a Workers' Compensation Board panel later overturned this, determining that the lack of consent or *nunc pro tunc* court approval barred benefits until further evidence was submitted. The petitioner then sought *nunc pro tunc* approval for the Babcock & Wilcox settlement and prospective approval for other proposed settlements from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the petition, prompting an appeal by the employer and carriers (respondents). The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, rejecting arguments regarding statutory compliance and timeliness, and finding no error in granting the *nunc pro tunc* order or approving prospective settlements.

Asbestos ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSettlement ApprovalNunc Pro Tunc OrderCarrier ConsentThird-Party SettlementCausationPulmonary DiseaseAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Babcock v. Lamb

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment in this personal injury action. The plaintiff sought to avoid workers' compensation exclusivity, claiming the defendant was not an employer or co-employee. However, evidence showed the defendant was a co-owner of the plaintiff's employer, and the plaintiff was injured during employment and accepted workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court held that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy, and by accepting benefits, the plaintiff forfeited the right to a common-law tort action. The order was unanimously reversed, and the complaint dismissed.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary Judgment AppealPersonal Injury ClaimEmployer LiabilityElection of RemediesPartnership LawCo-employee ImmunityAppellate ReversalTort LawNew York Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Babcock v. Whipple Bros.

Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for the construction of a retail store, with payment structured in phases including excavation, and time and materials for carpentry, masonry, and plumbing. The defendant terminated the contract after the excavation phase and during the second phase of work. Plaintiff subsequently sued for breach of contract, while the defendant counterclaimed for repair costs and damages due to construction delays. The defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing the contract was unenforceable due to indefiniteness regarding the time of performance and price for certain work. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion, finding the contract's payment formula sufficiently definite and identifying factual issues concerning the work schedule. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, without costs.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentContract definitenessTime of performanceContract priceConstruction contractAppellate reviewDelaware County Supreme CourtContract terminationCounterclaim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1982

Fusco v. W. W. Babcock & Co.

In this personal injury case, plaintiffs appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which dismissed their complaint against defendant Helmsley-Spear, Inc. The dismissal was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 11, after the trial court allowed Helmsley-Spear to amend its answer, asserting that plaintiff Albert Fusco was its employee and therefore workers' compensation was his exclusive remedy. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that granting the motion to amend, despite its tardiness, was proper. This was because Helmsley-Spear's assertion was consistent with the plaintiffs' complaint regarding the operation and control of the premises, and the facts from discovery supported the defense, thus precluding claims of surprise or prejudice by the plaintiffs.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyAffirmative DefenseLeave to AmendAppellate ReviewEmployee StatusPleading AmendmentsTrial Procedure
References
3
Case No. ADJ3093587 (VNO 351854)
Regular
Oct 27, 2008

ROBERT BABCOCK vs. CROWN DISPOSAL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior decision that awarded lien claims to an injured worker's spouse and daughter for home health care services. The Board found that the lien claimants failed to provide substantial medical evidence that the services were reasonably necessary as a direct result of the industrial injury. Consequently, the lien claims were disallowed in full.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCrown DisposalState Compensation Insurance FundLien ClaimantsFindings and OrderReconsiderationHome Health CareIndustrial InjuryCompromise and ReleaseSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 12 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