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
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. 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

Darrell W. Garza/Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. v. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp.

Darrell W. Garza was terminated by Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. for violating a safety rule. He pursued arbitration, leading to an award of reinstatement with a thirty-day leave without pay, but without explicit mention of back pay or offsets. Garza then filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the arbitration award and an award of back pay. The trial court confirmed the award and granted back pay with an offset for interim earnings. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment regarding back pay, concluding that the trial court lacked the authority to modify or interpret the arbitration award to include back pay or offsets because neither party sought clarification or modification within the statutory ninety-day period. The court rendered judgment confirming the original arbitration award as written.

arbitrationemployment lawwrongful terminationback payinterim earningsjudicial reviewarbitration awardFederal Arbitration ActTexas General Arbitration Actaward modification
References
16
Case No. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2008

Barresi v. County of Suffolk

The petitioner appealed an order and judgment dismissing their CPLR article 78 proceeding, which sought to compel a determination regarding back pay and sick leave benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. The initial claim was denied in 1992, and review was postponed until a worker's compensation decision in 2001. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed the petition based on the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches, as the petitioner failed to make a timely demand for GML § 207-c benefits after the worker's compensation decision. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the CPLR article 78 proceeding was untimely, as the statute of limitations expired even considering later correspondence as a demand and denial, and subsequent requests for reconsideration did not revive the claim.

CPLR Article 78MandamusBack PaySick Leave BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cStatute of LimitationsLachesWorker's Compensation ClaimAppeal DismissalGovernment Benefits
References
11
Case No. No. 08-07-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2008

Darrell W. Garza/Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. v. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp./Darrell W. Garza

Darrell W. Garza, an employee of Phelps Dodge Refining Corp., was terminated for violating a safety rule, prompting him to pursue an employment arbitration. The arbitrator found no good cause for termination, mandating a 30-day unpaid leave and reinstatement, but did not mention back pay. Garza subsequently moved to confirm the award in trial court, seeking back wages, while Phelps Dodge cross-appealed against any back pay award. The trial court initially awarded Garza back pay with an offset for interim earnings, which both parties challenged on appeal. The appellate court reversed the trial court's back pay award, concluding that the trial court lacked authority to add terms not explicitly stated in the arbitrator's original, ambiguous award, thereby rendering judgment to confirm the arbitration award as originally written.

ArbitrationEmployment DisputeBack PayOffsetFederal Arbitration ActTexas General Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewJudicial AuthorityArbitrator's AwardReinstatement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Division of Human Rights v. Parkview Auto Sales, Inc.

The court granted in part the petition to annul a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. While substantial evidence supported the compensatory damages award for mental anguish and humiliation, the back pay award of $25,620 was vacated. The back pay calculation was based on projections rather than actual salary and benefits of a co-worker and failed to account for unemployment compensation received by the complainant. The matter was remitted to the Division to properly determine the back pay amount, reduced by unemployment compensation, and to conduct a hearing if advised. The Division's petition to enforce the determination was granted except for the vacated back pay award.

Human Rights LawCompensatory DamagesBack PayMental AnguishHumiliationUnemployment BenefitsRemittiturJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawEmployment Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Griggs v. Sands

This consolidated case addresses whether a back-pay award from an arbitrator, under a collective bargaining agreement, constitutes 'wages' under the Tennessee Employment Security Law, thereby entitling the Department of Employment Security to a refund of unemployment benefits paid to discharged employees. Five employees of Heil-Quaker Corporation were discharged, received unemployment benefits, and later were reinstated with back pay, from which the arbitrator deducted the benefits. The Chancery Courts of Giles and Marshall Counties ruled against the Department, holding back pay was not wages. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, deeming back-pay awards as 'wages' that disqualify recipients from unemployment benefits and affirming the Department's authority to seek reimbursement.

unemployment compensationback paywagesTennessee Employment Security Lawarbitration awardcollective bargaining agreementreimbursement of benefitswrongful dischargeemployee eligibilitylabor dispute
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between City of Lackawanna & AFSCME, AFL-CIO Local Union No. 1205

This case addresses the determination of compensation due to four City of Lackawanna employees—Levulis, Dombrowski, Plaza, and Michalek—who were wrongfully discharged. An arbitrator initially ordered their reinstatement with full compensation, which the Supreme Court confirmed after the City's attempt to vacate the award was denied and subsequent appeals were dismissed due to lack of prosecution. Despite court orders, the City delayed reinstatement and compensation, leading to a judgment for back pay and a contempt order. The central issue before the court is how to calculate the back pay, specifically concerning deductions for earnings from other employment held concurrently with municipal employment prior to discharge, and claims for vacation, personal leave, and birthday pay. The court ruled that earnings from pre-existing second jobs are not deductible from back pay and that vacation, personal leave, and birthday pay are not due over and above full pay reimbursement, holding the City responsible for the extensive delays.

Wrongful DischargeBack Pay CalculationCivil Service LawDeductions from WagesDual EmploymentArbitration Award EnforcementContempt of CourtPublic Employee RightsReinstatementErie County Supreme Court
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Aaron Rents, Inc.

This case concerns an employment discrimination lawsuit under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) brought by Plaintiff Edwards against Defendant Aaron Rents, Inc. A jury found in favor of the Plaintiff, awarding back pay, compensatory, and punitive damages for gender discrimination. The Court subsequently considered multiple post-trial motions, including the Plaintiff's requests for attorney's fees and equitable relief, and the Defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and remittitur. The Court denied most of the Defendant's motions but granted remittitur, reducing the jury's awards for compensatory and punitive damages to a statutory cap, and adjusting back pay and front pay calculations. Ultimately, the Plaintiff was awarded attorney's fees, as well as remitted amounts for compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, and front pay, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and court costs.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTCHRAAttorney FeesPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesBack PayFront PayRemittiturJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 5,543 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