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

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

Graves v. City of New York

Gary Graves, a former licensed clinical social worker at Rikers Island for Corizon Health Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Correction (DOC) after his security clearance was revoked. This revocation stemmed from a 2015 investigation into Corizon, which revealed systemic failures and security breaches at Rikers Island. Despite Graves's extensive rehabilitation efforts and a successful 14-year tenure at Rikers Island with no disciplinary issues, his security license was revoked based on criminal convictions from 1972-1987. Graves argued that the respondents failed to consider all eight factors mandated by Correction Law, article 23-A, §§ 752 and 753. The court, however, dismissed the petition, ruling that the Correction Law provisions do not apply to DOC's revocation of security clearance for individuals working at its facilities, interpreting such access as 'membership' in a law enforcement agency, which is exempt from the statute.

Security Clearance RevocationCorrection Law Article 23-ACriminal Background CheckLaw Enforcement ExemptionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial Review of Administrative DeterminationRehabilitation EvidenceRikers Island Correctional FacilityCivilian Employment in Law EnforcementAdministrative Appeal
References
23
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

Reed v. Great Meadow Correctional Facility

The decision addresses a habeas corpus petition filed by Robert Reed against Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Reed had been convicted of two counts of first-degree rape in Niagara County, a conviction which was largely affirmed on appeal, though his sentences were modified to run concurrently. He raised four primary grounds for federal habeas relief: insufficiency of evidence, incredibility of witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper consolidation of indictments during his trial. The court, however, rejected each of Reed's arguments, finding that the evidence presented at trial was constitutionally sufficient, witness credibility was properly within the jury's discretion, no prosecutorial misconduct as defined by precedent occurred, and the joinder of indictments was appropriate. Citing relevant case law, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the joinder and that the jury was properly instructed. As a result, the petition for habeas corpus was dismissed, and a certificate of appealability was denied, as the court found no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Habeas CorpusRape ConvictionInsufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityProsecutorial MisconductJoinder of IndictmentsDue ProcessActual Prejudice StandardFederal Habeas ReliefState Court Conviction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of D'Errico v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant, a maintenance worker for the New York City Department of Corrections, sought workers' compensation benefits for severe major depressive disorder with psychotic features, post-traumatic stress disorder, and panic disorder, which he attributed to exposure to violent incidents at work. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, concluding he was not exposed to greater work-related stress than similarly situated employees. Claimant appealed both the initial denial (April 20, 2007) and the subsequent denial of reconsideration/full Board review (January 23, 2008), but failed to timely perfect the appeal from the initial decision. Consequently, the court's review was limited to whether the Board abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. Finding no abuse of discretion, as the claimant presented no new evidence or material change in conditions, and the Board had fully considered the issues, the court affirmed the Board's decision.

Mental Health ClaimsDepressive DisorderPTSDPanic DisorderWorkplace StressAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationFull Board ReviewDiscretionary ReviewTimeliness of Appeal
References
20
Case No. 15-25-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2025

State of Texas v. City of San Antonio, Ron Niremberg, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of San Antonio, and Erik Walsh, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio

The State sued the City of San Antonio, its Mayor, and its City Manager for ultra vires conduct under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, seeking declarations that the City’s plan to spend taxpayer dollars on travel for out-of-state abortions violates the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clause. The district court granted the City’s plea to the jurisdiction, asserting the claim was not ripe, and dismissed the suit. The State argues that the City’s plan to fund out-of-state abortion travel violates the Gift Clause by lacking public benefit, failing to serve a public purpose, and not retaining public control over funds. The State contends that delaying judicial review would cause great hardship due to the imminent risk of constitutional injury from the disbursement of funds, which the City intended to expedite before SB 33's effective date or by the end of its fiscal year. The State asserts the case is ripe for review because the illegal activity is "likely to occur," and despite SB 33 prohibiting such funding, the City's belief it can disburse funds by September 30, 2025, keeps the controversy live.

Public Funds MisuseAbortion Travel FundingTexas Gift ClauseRipeness DoctrineUltra Vires ActConstitutional ChallengeState-City ConflictReproductive Rights PolicyTaxpayer MoneyInjunctive Relief
References
89
Case No. 13-12-00215-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2013

Keith Redburn v. Charmelle Garrett, Individually and as City Manager of the City of Victoria, Texas and Lynn Short, Individually and as Director of Public Works of the City of Victoria, Texas and City of Victoria, Texas

Appellant Keith Redburn appealed the trial court's dismissal of his claims against Charmelle Garrett, Lynn Short, and the City of Victoria, Texas. This opinion is a rehearing of a prior decision, with the court withdrawing its earlier opinion. The case involves a property dispute where Redburn plugged a culvert on his land, which the City claims is part of its storm sewer system. Redburn sued for injunctive relief against alleged trespass and for a declaratory judgment. The City filed cross-claims, including for an easement. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Garrett and Short based on governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, finding their actions within the scope of employment. It also affirmed the dismissal of Redburn's trespass claim against the City due to sovereign immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Redburn's declaratory judgment claim against the City regarding an easement, finding it germane to the City's own cross-claim for an easement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Governmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActScope of EmploymentIntentional TortTrespassDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefMunicipal Storm Sewer System
References
32
Case No. 17-0713
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2019

Luis Garcia v. City of Willis, Leonard Reed, in His Official Capacity as [Mayor] of the City of Willis, James Nowak in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Willis, Hector Forestier, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of Willis

Luis Garcia, representing a putative class, filed suit against the City of Willis and its officials, challenging the constitutionality of red-light camera statutes and a city ordinance, seeking declaratory, injunctive relief, and a refund of civil penalties paid. The trial court denied the city's plea to the jurisdiction, but the court of appeals reversed, concluding Garcia failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that governmental immunity barred his reimbursement claim. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Garcia lacked standing for his prospective claims due to having already paid the fine and facing no imminent future harm. Furthermore, his reimbursement claim was barred by governmental immunity because he voluntarily paid the fine without utilizing administrative remedies that would have provided a stay. Regarding his constitutional-takings claim, the Court found that although governmental immunity does not apply, Garcia was still required to exhaust administrative remedies before initiating a takings claim in district court, as the administrative process had the potential to moot his claim. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of Garcia's claims.

Red-light camerasConstitutional challengeAdministrative remediesStandingGovernmental immunityUltra viresDeclaratory judgmentInjunctive reliefCivil penaltyTraffic enforcement
References
32
Case No. E2013-00441-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2014

David G. Young, Individually and as City Administrator for the City of Lafollette v. City of Lafollette

This interlocutory appeal concerns a retaliatory discharge action brought by former city administrator David G. Young against the City of LaFollette. The central legal question is whether the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act’s (GTLA) non-jury provision applies to a claim under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA) when brought against a governmental entity. The trial court had denied LaFollette's motion to strike Young's jury demand, permitting this appeal. The Court of Appeals, referencing its precedent in Sneed v. City of Red Bank, reversed the trial court's decision. It concluded that the GTLA's non-jury requirement is applicable to TPPA claims against municipalities, thereby requiring the case to proceed without a jury.

retaliatory dischargejury trialgovernmental immunityTennessee Public Protection ActTennessee Governmental Tort Liability Actmunicipal liabilitystatutory interpretationinterlocutory appealemployment lawsovereign immunity
References
22
Case No. 03-23-00531-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2025

The State of Texas v. the City of Houston, the City of San Antonio, and the City of El Paso

This case concerns an appeal by the State of Texas from a district court's judgment declaring the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act (TRCA) unconstitutional. The TRCA aimed to achieve statewide regulatory consistency by preempting local regulations and establishing a private cause of action for those injured by preempted local laws. The Cities of Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso initiated a pre-enforcement action, challenging the Act's constitutionality on various grounds, including violations of the Home Rule Amendment and due-course-of-law provisions. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the plaintiff Cities lacked standing to sue. Specifically, the appellate court found that the Cities failed to demonstrate an "injury in fact" arising from a concrete application of the Act or to establish that their alleged injuries were "fairly traceable" to the State of Texas.

TexasAppeals CourtRegulatory Consistency ActStandingSubject-Matter JurisdictionPreemptionHome RuleDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional LawInjury-in-fact
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 6,930 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