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

In re Arbitration between New York State Department of Correctional Services & New York State Correctional Officers

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order vacating an arbitration award. Petitioners, the Department of Correctional Services and Governor's Office of Employee Relations, challenged an arbitrator's decision to grant a correction sergeant, Charles Hannigan, approximately $4,000 in vacation and holiday accruals. The arbitrator had initially issued an award with a 45-day suspension for Hannigan and then retained jurisdiction to ensure "made whole" implementation. Petitioners argued the arbitrator exceeded his power by reopening the arbitration. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the award, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found that the arbitrator's retention of jurisdiction and subsequent reopening of the award violated explicit limitations in the collective bargaining agreement.

Arbitration awardVacaturArbitrator's jurisdictionCollective bargaining agreementPublic employmentCorrection officerBack payEmployee benefitsWaiverScope of arbitration
References
21
Case No. ADJ9737947
Regular
Apr 15, 2016

DOUGLAS CRINGEAN vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIO FACILITIES, WARNER BROS. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, involving Douglas Cringean and Warner Bros. Studio Facilities, concerns a clerical error in a prior decision's caption. The Board's decision served on April 11, 2016, incorrectly stated the caption as "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration." The Board is correcting this to the accurate caption, "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration." This correction is permissible as clerical errors can be rectified at any time without further proceedings.

Clerical ErrorCaption CorrectionPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAMENDED captionSupplemental ProceedingsADJ9737947Warner Bros. Studio FacilitiesDouglas Cringean
References
1
Case No. 08-cv-6567L
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. NYS Department of Corrections Attica Correctional Facility

Plaintiff Stefanie A. Davis, a former employee of the New York State Department of Corrections at Attica Correctional Facility, filed a lawsuit alleging race and gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. She claimed her supervisor assigned her a disproportionate number of minority inmates, and she faced retaliation after complaining. Defendant's initial motion for summary judgment was granted for all claims except retaliation. Following this, Defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment on the remaining retaliation claim. The court granted Defendant's second summary judgment motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation, specifically noting the absence of protected activity and materially adverse employment action.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationProtected ActivityAdverse Employment ActionPro Se Litigant
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. City of New York Department of Correction

Plaintiff Collette J. Scott sued Norman Seabrook, the Corrections Officers’ Benevolent Association of the City of New York (COBA), and the City of New York Department of Corrections (DOC), alleging sexual assault, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and state law. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended granting summary judgment for all defendants on retaliation claims and for DOC on hostile work environment, but denying it for the Seabrook defendants on the hostile work environment claim. District Judge Sidney H. Stein adopted this recommendation in its entirety after de novo review. The Court dismissed all claims against DOC and retaliation claims against Seabrook defendants but denied summary judgment for Seabrook defendants on the hostile work environment claim.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIILabor Union LiabilitySex DiscriminationCorrectional OfficersMagistrate Judge RecommendationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56
References
65
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. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ1541863 (SBR 0317921) ADJ1955130 (SBR 0318072)
Regular
Oct 24, 2008

CAROL TELIZYN vs. BRASWELL'S COLONIAL CARE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed Arrowback Medical Group's (AMG) petition for reconsideration because it was successive and not taken from a final order, as the prior decision remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board also corrected the caption of its August 8, 2008 decision nunc pro tunc to include both relevant case numbers. AMG's core argument regarding the applicability of an expired fee schedule was previously addressed and found to be without merit.

Nunc Pro TuncPetition for ReconsiderationSuccessive PetitionFinal OrderInterim OrderRemandCaption CorrectionRepackaged PharmaceuticalsOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLien Claimant
References
10
Case No. ADJ1839782 (GOL 0101821), ADJ2471155 (GOL 0101822), ADJ3556721 (GOL 0101823)
Regular
Nov 20, 2012

JEANETTE ZINKE vs. MENTOR CORPORATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY-BEAVERTON

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a clerical error in the caption of a prior Order Denying Reconsideration. The order erroneously listed "Employers Compensation" as the defendant insurance carrier instead of the correct entity, "Liberty Mutual Insurance Company-Beaverton." The Board issued this order to correct that clerical error. Such corrections are permissible at any time without further proceedings.

Order Denying ReconsiderationClerical Error CorrectionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLiberty Mutual Insurance Company-BeavertonEmployers CompensationCaption CorrectionAlfonso J. MoralesRonnie G. CaplaneFrank M. BrassGOL District Office
References
1
Case No. ADJ1160933 (SAL 0073085) ADJ1668595 (SAL 0073084)
Regular
Mar 01, 2012

MARIA AYALA vs. MANN PACKING COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a clerical error correction. CIGA, representing Industrial Indemnity, requested the correction of the liquidation date of Industrial Indemnity. The original order mistakenly stated the liquidation occurred in 2004, but CIGA correctly identified it as July 2, 2003. The Board agreed and ordered the amendment to reflect the accurate liquidation date, also adding Zenith Insurance to the caption, without altering the original decision's outcome.

CLERICAL ERROR CORRECTIONCIGAINDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY LIQUIDATIONFREMONT INDEMNITYSEDGWICK CMSZENITH INSURANCE COMPANYINSURANCE CODE SECTION 1063.1OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONDATE OF LIQUIDATION
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rumsey v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiffs, employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and military reservists, challenged Departmental Directive # 2212, which allowed the rescheduling of their regular days off to coincide with military drills. They claimed this violated their rights under federal and state military laws and the Equal Protection Clause, arguing it discriminated against them by not requiring similar rescheduling for other types of leave. The defendants asserted the directive was necessary to address staffing shortages and prevent abuse of military leave, noting that pass days were routinely rescheduled for various other reasons. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the directive did not constitute discrimination, as it did not require 'special accommodations' for reservists beyond what was afforded to other employees, consistent with the precedent set in Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

Military LeaveEmployment RightsWork ScheduleDiscrimination ClaimSummary Judgment MotionCollective BargainingSeniority RightsDepartmental DirectiveFederal LawState Law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,927 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