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

Ginsberg v. Industrial Home for the Blind

The court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a case involving plaintiff Seymour Ginsberg, who sustained a transportation-related injury during his employment with the Industrial Home for the Blind. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's sole legal recourse was under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Special Term correctly granted the defendants' motion, thereby dismissing the complaint. This decision was based on the finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, making the Workers’ Compensation Law the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyTransportation InjuryEmployment
References
1
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00346 [135 AD3d 837]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2016

Mullen v. Helen Keller Services for the Blind

Andrea Mullen, the injured plaintiff, alleged that she tripped and fell over a treadmill at the defendant's facility in Hempstead while training. She filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the treadmill was an open and obvious condition and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentOpen and Obvious ConditionNegligenceDuty of CareReasonably Safe ConditionTriable Issue of FactAppellate ReviewSlip and Fall
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laramee v. Jewish Guild for the Blind

Plaintiff Laramee brought claims against her former employer, The Jewish Guild for the Blind (JGB), alleging employment discrimination based on disability (morbid obesity) and harassment, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, and New York State Human Rights Law. JGB moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that Laramee had previously signed a severance agreement containing a knowing and voluntary release of all claims against the employer. The District Court examined the "totality of the circumstances" regarding the waiver, including Laramee's legal representation, time to review the agreement, and compensation received. Concluding that Laramee had knowingly and voluntarily waived her claims, the court granted JGB's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Additionally, JGB's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Laramee and her attorney was denied, as the court found the complaint was not frivolous.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSeverance AgreementWaiverRelease of ClaimsMotion to Dismiss
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind

Plaintiff, an African-American woman, sued her employer, Jewish Guild for the Blind, and several supervisors, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, aiding and abetting, and constructive discharge under state and city human rights laws. Her claims stemmed from alleged racial slurs, unequal work conditions, and perceived demotion following a departmental reorganization. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff's performance issues, particularly regarding patient chart documentation, were legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for her treatment and eventual termination due to job abandonment. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the denial of summary judgment, finding plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of discrimination or to show defendants' reasons were pretextual. The court concluded that isolated racial remarks alone were insufficient to establish a hostile work environment or employment discrimination, as other alleged conduct was either unsupported, contradicted, or justified by legitimate business concerns.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimConstructive DischargeHuman Rights LawJob AbandonmentWork Performance IssuesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Indemnity Co. v. Garcini

The appellate court affirmed a judgment awarding worker's compensation benefits to an appellee who suffered total blindness in one eye. Home Indemnity Company, the appellant, challenged the findings, arguing there was no evidence of a causal link between a head injury and the subsequent blindness, and that the appellee was already legally blind prior to the incident. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of causation, integrating both the appellee's symptom testimony and expert medical opinion. Crucially, the court established that for workers' compensation purposes, pre-injury vision must be evaluated based on the employee's *corrected* vision, not uncorrected vision. This interpretation allows for compensability in cases of total blindness resulting from employment-related injuries, even if the employee had pre-existing vision issues correctable with lenses.

Retinal DetachmentCausation StandardsLegal Blindness DefinitionCorrected Vision StandardPre-existing InjuryEye InjuryTexas Workers' Compensation ActMedical Expert TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Paul S.

Respondent's 16-year-old son, legally blind and multihandicapped, has been in the petitioner's custody since 1976 after being adjudicated a neglected child. The Family Court of Chemung County granted the petitioner's application to extend placement for an additional 12 months, through December 10, 1987. The respondent appealed this determination. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, citing ample evidence that continuing the placement was in the child's best interest due to his specialized care and educational needs at the New York State School for the Blind. Testimony from a medical social worker highlighted the child's agitation after home visits and the respondent's difficulty in consistently disciplining her son.

Child PlacementFamily Court Act Article 10Extension of PlacementNeglected ChildSpecialized CareParental UnfitnessPsychological HarmBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewChemung County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2014

Gilkerson v. Chasewood Bank

Victoria Gilkerson and Blind Ambitions Groups (BAG) filed a putative class action against The Chasewood Bank, alleging its ATM at 8500 Cypresswood Drive, Spring, Texas, was not accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals, violating the ADA and Texas state laws. Chasewood moved to dismiss, primarily arguing Gilkerson and BAG lacked standing, especially given Gilkerson's status as a 'serial litigant' or 'tester.' The court denied the motions, finding Gilkerson had established standing under the 'deterrent effect doctrine' due to her past encounters with non-compliant ATMs and her intent to use accessible ATMs in her travel zone. BAG also established representational standing through Gilkerson's membership. The case will proceed to address the factual dispute regarding ATM compliance.

Americans with Disabilities ActADA Title IIIATM AccessibilityVisually ImpairedDisability DiscriminationClass Action LawsuitStanding DoctrineInjunctive ReliefTexas Human Resource CodeTexas Architectural Barrier Act
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shepherd v. Goodwill Industries of South Texas, Inc.

Plaintiff Sheree Shepherd, a Black and legally blind individual, sued Defendant Goodwill Industries of South Texas Inc. for alleged discrimination based on race and disability, and for retaliation. The claims stemmed from Goodwill's decision not to hire Shepherd for a Junior Editor position, following her prior EEOC charge against former supervisors at South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind (STLB). Goodwill argued legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not hiring her, including a slow skills assessment and potential security clearance issues at the military base where the job was located. The Court denied Goodwill's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Goodwill's reasons were a pretext for discrimination and whether a former supervisor, Ms. Johnson, influenced the hiring decision with retaliatory motives under the 'cat's paw' theory.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActADAEmployment LawSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationHiring Discrimination
References
23
Case No. ADJ3560082 (ANA 0380953)
Regular
Mar 12, 2009

MARGARITA SERRANO vs. 3 DAY BLINDS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claim by Huntington Beach Hospital for medical services rendered to an injured worker. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to reverse a prior finding, determining that contractual agreements between the hospital, Blue Cross, and the defendant insurer (SCIF) constitute an "express agreement" under Labor Code section 5304. This express agreement, which includes binding arbitration provisions, divests the WCAB of jurisdiction over the lien dispute. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded its prior award and ordered the parties to arbitrate the dispute according to the terms of their contract.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardState Compensation Insurance FundHuntington Beach HospitalComprehensive Contracting Hospital AgreementWorkers' Compensation Managed Care Service AgreementOther PayorLabor Code Section 5304Labor Code Section 4609Express AgreementBinding Arbitration
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 47 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