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

Connelly v. Griffin

The court confirmed the disciplinary determination against the petitioner. The determination of guilt was based on the recreation worker's testimony regarding threatening statements made by the petitioner in the gym, which the worker perceived as directed at him due to a prior disagreement. The petitioner's and inmate witnesses' contrary testimony created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's claim of res judicata, clarifying that a previous disciplinary determination, arising from a guilty plea for abusive statements made to the recreation worker on a different day, was a separate incident and thus had no preclusive effect on the current disciplinary action. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

inmate disciplinedisciplinary hearingthreatening statementscredibility issueres judicatacorrectional facilitiesadministrative determinationappellate reviewevidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Kelly

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Commissioner of the City of New York Department of Finance, which terminated the petitioner's employment as a deputy sheriff. The petition was denied and the Article 78 proceeding dismissed. Substantial evidence supported the findings that the petitioner falsely reported an inability to work, engaged in unauthorized outside employment, and lied under oath during a workers' compensation hearing. The court found no basis to disturb the Administrative Law Judge's credibility determinations and concluded that the penalty of termination did not shock the sense of fairness.

Employment terminationDeputy SheriffFalse reportingUnauthorized employmentPerjuryWorkers' compensation hearingCredibility findingsPenalty assessmentJudicial reviewAdministrative decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Di Guida v. McCall

Petitioner, a food service worker, sought accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits after being injured in a fall on milk crates while leaving work. Respondent denied the application for accidental disability benefits, finding the petitioner was not "in service" at the time of the injury, a determination upheld by the court based on substantial evidence and the resolution of a credibility issue. The denial of ordinary disability benefits was also affirmed, supported by a physician's report that found no significant neck or shoulder injury or functional disability. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

accidental disabilityordinary disabilityretirement benefitsfood service workerfall injuryin servicecredibilitymedical examinationfunctional disabilityCPLR article 78
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hobbs v. Lavine

Petitioner's home relief assistance was discontinued by the New York City Department of Social Services based on a finding that she was fully employed. This determination was affirmed by the respondent after a hearing. The court found that the respondent's determination was not supported by substantial evidence, as the city agency's evidence consisted only of two vague case-record entries. Consequently, the application was granted, and the determination was annulled, with petitioner's assistance directed to be reinstated retroactively.

Home ReliefPublic AssistanceSocial ServicesEmployment StatusSubstantial EvidenceArticle 78 CPLRAdministrative ReviewRetroactive BenefitsDiscontinuation of Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1982

Hodge v. D'Elia

This case involves a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services. The determination affirmed a local agency's decision to reduce the petitioner's public assistance grant. This reduction was for the recoupment of income tax refunds and workers' compensation benefits received by the petitioner. Although the court agreed that the petitioner willfully withheld information, it found that the respondents failed to evaluate if the recoupment rate would cause undue hardship. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings to assess undue hardship.

Public AssistanceRecoupmentIncome Tax RefundsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsUndue HardshipCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewFair HearingAnnulmentRemittal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Susan G. v. Bane

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination denying the expungement of a child maltreatment report. The petitioner's eight-year-old son reported being kicked by his mother, leading to an 'indicated' report in the Statewide Central Register. After a fair hearing, the determination to deny expungement was upheld based on 'some credible evidence' of maltreatment. The petitioner challenged the finding, arguing a lack of substantial evidence and a violation of due process due to the "some credible evidence" standard. The court confirmed the determination, finding the evidence sufficient and the standard constitutional, as the petitioner failed to prove actual employment termination due to the report.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseExpungementStatewide Central RegisterCPLR Article 78Due ProcessStandard of ProofCredible EvidenceAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Selsky

The petitioner, a prison inmate, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge three separate determinations that found him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules during his participation in a work release program. The first determination involved taking unapproved cash loans from a co-worker, supported by bank records and parole officer testimony, despite the petitioner's denials. The second determination concerned altering his work schedule without parole officer approval, substantiated by time sheets and employer testimony. The third determination accused him of unauthorized driving, which was supported by witness testimony. The court confirmed all determinations and dismissed the petition, finding them supported by substantial evidence and rejecting the petitioner's claims of procedural errors, prejudice, and bias.

prison disciplinary ruleswork release programunapproved loansaltered work scheduleunauthorized drivingsubstantial evidencehearsay evidencecredibilityprocedural errorsdue process
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ebanks v. Perales

This case involves a child care worker, the petitioner, who sought to expunge a record of maltreatment from the State-wide central register after an altercation with a 16-year-old resident. Following an investigation and a fair hearing, the respondent upheld the finding of maltreatment. The court confirmed the respondent's determination, ruling that the "some credible evidence" standard under Social Services Law § 422 (5) was appropriate for maintaining the record, distinguishing it from the "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard required in other contexts. The proceeding was dismissed on the merits.

Child Abuse and MaltreatmentChild Protection ServicesAdministrative ReviewExpungement of RecordsStandard of ProofSocial Services LawCPLR Article 78Child Care WorkerDue ProcessAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. ADJ 9194457, ADJ9194450, ADJ8835968, ADJ8835949, ADJ8835510, ADJ1 0126921
Regular
Jul 04, 2000

CHARLES OKPALA vs. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AIG CLAIMS, THE BOEING COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found the applicant not credible. The judge determined the applicant was not incapacitated when he entered into a Compromise and Release agreement and thus it would be approved. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determination based on observing the witness.

COMPROMISE AND RELEASEWITHDRAWALINCAPACITYCREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDUE DILIGENCEUNDUE INFLUENCEDURESSMEDICAL EVIDENCEEMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,943 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