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. 16,680; 78-CI-18460
Regular Panel Decision

City of San Antonio v. Aguilar

This case addresses an appeal concerning a municipal labor contract dispute, where Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) of the San Antonio Fire Department sought overtime back pay. The central legal question involved the applicability and interpretation of the State Civil Service Act, specifically regarding the standard work week for fire department employees whose duties do not include firefighting. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, which had awarded overtime compensation to the EMTs for a period from November 1974 to July 1977. The decision heavily relied on the doctrine of stare decisis, citing the precedent set by the companion case of Kierstead v. City of San Antonio. The court dismissed the City's arguments regarding the doctrine of ejusdem generis and the method of overtime calculation, affirming that these issues were consistent with prior judicial interpretations.

Municipal EmploymentOvertime CompensationPublic Safety PersonnelStatutory InterpretationPreclusion DoctrinesStare DecisisRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelCollective Bargaining AgreementsCivil Service Law
References
18
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

Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 471 v. P. & J.G. Enterprises, Inc.

The Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 471, AFL-CIO, petitioned the court to confirm two arbitration awards against P. & J.G. Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The Albany Thruway House. The dispute arose from the employer's discharge of two employees, Ann Russo and Mary O’Brien, who were members of the Union's collective bargaining unit. The first arbitration award, dated June 15, 1988, found the discharges were not for just cause and ordered reinstatement with back wages. Following the employer's failure to pay back wages despite reinstatement, a second arbitration award, dated September 14, 1989, quantified the back wages for the two employees. The employer contested the confirmation, citing lack of evidentiary support for the arbitrator's decision, alleged partiality of the arbitrator, and financial inability to pay the awards. The court, applying a limited scope of review for arbitration awards, rejected all of the employer's arguments. Ultimately, the court confirmed both arbitration awards and ordered the employer to pay the back wages, along with costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the Union, finding the employer's refusal to comply unjustified.

Arbitration awardLabor Management Relations ActCollective bargaining agreementBack wagesEmployee dischargeJust causeAttorney's feesJudicial reviewArbitrator partialityFinancial inability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waco Transit Corp. v. Transport Workers Union of America Local No. 276

The transit company appealed a district court's decision that upheld an arbitrator's ruling in a labor dispute arising from an employee's discharge. The central question was whether the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by determining that while just cause existed for disciplinary action, it did not warrant outright dismissal, instead imposing a one-month suspension with reinstatement and back pay. The court examined the collective bargaining agreement's arbitration clause and the specific stipulation for submission to arbitration. It concluded that the arbitrator's decision, including the power to award suspension and reinstatement, was implicitly or by necessary implication within the scope of the agreement. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, rejecting the company's jurisdictional challenge.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeArbitrator JurisdictionJust CauseEmployee DisciplineDischargeSuspensionAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 1995

Wackenhut Corp. v. International Union, United Plant Guard Workers

Wackenhut Corporation, a security services provider, filed suit to vacate an arbitration award, while the International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America, Amalgamated Local 515 counterclaimed to enforce it. The dispute arose from Wackenhut's termination of employee Fernando T. Coelho after Consolidated Edison Company revoked his site access to a nuclear facility. An arbitrator ruled that Wackenhut violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by terminating Coelho without just cause, awarding him back pay, benefits, and reinstatement. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sprizzo, affirmed the arbitrator's finding of a CBA violation, concluding that 'relieve from duty' differed from 'discharge for just cause'. However, the court vacated the portions of the award granting back pay, benefits, and reinstatement at another facility, holding that the arbitrator exceeded his contractual authority. The court enforced the arbitrator's directive for Wackenhut to renew efforts to persuade Con Ed to reinstate Coelho's security clearance.

ArbitrationVacatur of Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee TerminationSite Access RevocationManagement Rights ClauseJust CauseBack Pay DisputeEmployee ReinstatementJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
25
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
Showing 1-10 of 9,704 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