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
Jan 22, 2004

Mete v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation

This class action alleged age discrimination in employment against the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD). Plaintiffs, former Chiefs of Developmental Center Treatment Services, claimed disparate treatment and disparate impact arising from a 1989 reduction in force (RIF) that eliminated their positions. All 46 Chiefs, who were over 40, were either demoted or retired, and statistical evidence showed a disproportionate impact on employees over 40. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while plaintiffs established a prima facie case, OMRDD provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the RIF (economic conditions and long-standing concerns about the position's utility), which plaintiffs failed to adequately prove was a pretext for discrimination.

Age DiscriminationClass ActionSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactReduction in ForceEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie CaseStatistical Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewin v. O'Brien

Plaintiffs, including Eunice Lewin, an employee of the Buffalo Board of Education, commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained after Lewin slipped and fell on ice in front of a school in the City of Buffalo. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted the defendant chief engineer's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendant was a salaried employee of the Buffalo Board of Education at the time of the accident. Therefore, the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy for the injuries was workers' compensation, as stipulated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the defendant was an independent contractor, noting that his discretion regarding staffing was limited and subject to Board oversight.

personal injuryslip and fallsummary judgmentworkers' compensation exclusivityemployee statusindependent contractorappellate reviewaffirmancechief engineerBuffalo Board of Education
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Case No. ADJ7209191
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

Victor Riley vs. Kansas City Chiefs, TIG, administered by Zenith Insurance Company

In *Riley v. Kansas City Chiefs*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB found that further study of the factual and legal issues was necessary to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Consequently, all future filings in this case must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to any district office or via e-filing. This order allows for a more thorough review of the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ8017052
Regular
Sep 10, 2013

BILLY BABER vs. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Billy Baber's workers' compensation claim against the Kansas City Chiefs, San Diego Chargers, and Travelers Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the original decision. While affirming the June 17, 2013 decision in most respects, the Board amended the findings of fact and award to state that the applicant has not met his burden of proof for temporary disability, and thus, no temporary disability is awarded.

ADJ8017052Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary DisabilityBurden of ProofAwardDecision After ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ6966334
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

WALTER CADENA vs. UNITED CARRIER, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of an order compelling a deposition, arguing it violated a prior consolidation order. The Board dismissed the reconsideration petition as the Minute Order was not a final decision. However, the Board granted removal to allow Associate Chief Judge Kahn to clarify if his prior consolidation order applied to the deposition. The deposition order is suspended pending ACJ Kahn's review and advisement within 20 days.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder of Consolidation for DiscoveryAdministrative Law JudgeAssociate Chief JudgeMinute OrderDepositionLien ClaimantsDiscovery Matters
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2010

Campbell v. Astrue

Bruce Campbell (Plaintiff) filed an action seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini issued a Report-Recommendation, which Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue adopted. The case involves a claimant's disability determination, focusing on his alleged illiteracy, residual functional capacity (RFC), mental impairments, and obesity. The court identified several deficiencies in the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision, including an unsupported finding regarding the plaintiff's education level, a potentially flawed RFC assessment due to reliance on a non-medical opinion, and a failure to consider a reviewing psychologist's opinion on mental impairments. Consequently, the court remanded the Commissioner's decision for further proceedings to properly develop the record on the plaintiff's literacy, reconsider the RFC, and re-evaluate his mental impairments.

Social Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeDisability BenefitsResidual Functional CapacityIlliteracyMental ImpairmentsObesityVocational FactorsMedical-Vocational RulesAdministrative Law Judge
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1988

Claim of Baker v. Three Village Central School District

The employer appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found that the claimant had a causally related disability after a head injury sustained on September 15, 1982. The employer contested the finding of disability subsequent to November 1, 1982, arguing that a psychologist's testimony should not have been considered on the issue of causal relationship because the psychologist was not a physician. The Board, however, based its decision on a comprehensive review of the record, including reports and testimony from a psychiatrist, as well as the testimony of the claimant and the psychologist. The court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding ample expert medical evidence supporting the disability and concluding that the psychologist's testimony was relevant to the length of the disability. The court found no irrationality in the Board's conclusion and no basis to disturb the decision.

Workers' CompensationHead InjuryDisabilityCausal RelationshipPsychiatric EvaluationNeuropsychologyExpert TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Croft v. Village of Newark

Plaintiff William Croft, a patrolman with the Village of Newark Police Department, sued the Village of Newark and Chief of Police David Christler, alleging violations of USERRA due to denied promotions and other employment benefits, and retaliation for asserting his rights. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including that the NPD is not subject to suit and that Chief Christler is not an employer under USERRA. The court granted summary judgment for the dismissal of the NPD and Chief Christler in his official capacity, as well as for claims regarding the elimination of the SRO position, the educational opportunity, and retaliation. However, the court denied summary judgment for the plaintiff's discrimination claims related to promotional decisions in 2007, 2008, and 2009 against the Village of Newark and Chief Christler in his individual capacity, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether military status was a motivating factor.

USERRAEmployment DiscriminationMilitary Status DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimDenied PromotionSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityIndividual LiabilityCat's Paw TheoryProvisional Appointments
References
48
Case No. ADJ3103905
Regular
Oct 28, 2011

JOSE PENALOZA VALDEZ vs. MANUEL AVILA, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE, Administered By FRYE CLAIMS CONSULTATION

This case concerns an applicant awarded 68% permanent disability, including a significant portion for psyche injury, based on a psychologist's report. The defendant appeals, arguing the psychologist's report was improperly admitted and they were denied the opportunity for rebuttal. The Appeals Board rescinded the award, finding that while the report was admissible, the defendant should have been allowed to obtain a rebuttal report, especially since the psychologist was not the primary treating physician. The case is returned for further proceedings to develop the record regarding the psyche injury and disability claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryPermanent DisabilityMedical Report AdmissibilityQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 304 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