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. ADJ2023809 (SRO 0103259)
Regular
Mar 07, 2012

Robert Larkins vs. DHL GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied DHL Global Business Services' petition for reconsideration. The Board found that DHL's unilateral decision to stop direct deposit payments violated a prior order and was sanctionable conduct. The applicant, Robert Larkins, was awarded permanent disability and future medical treatment following a 1998 injury. The Board's decision affirmed the obligation to continue electronic direct deposits and upheld sanctions against DHL for non-compliance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDHL Global Business ServicesSedgwick CMSRobert LarkinsOrder Denying ReconsiderationDirect DepositSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ogiba v. Business Services Co. of Utica

The plaintiff, Robert Ogiba, sued his former employer, Business Services Company of Utica (BSC), alleging age discrimination under the ADEA after his termination as a copier technician during a company-wide downsizing in 1992. Ogiba claimed his termination was due to his age, citing comments made by superiors and the retention of younger employees. BSC countered that Ogiba was terminated due to unsatisfactory job performance compared to coworkers, which was the criterion used for a reduction in force. The court found that while Ogiba met the satisfactory performance element of a prima facie case, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to infer age discrimination, noting the 'same actor inference' and the innocuous nature of alleged discriminatory comments. Consequently, BSC's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentADEADisparate TreatmentReduction in ForceJob PerformancePrima Facie CaseEvidentiary StandardDiscrimination Inference
References
23
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23398 [81 Misc 3d 21]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C. v. Global Commodities, Inc.

Plaintiff, Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C., filed a commercial claims action against Global Commodities, Inc. for $5,000 for unpaid medical services provided to an alleged employee. Plaintiff claimed defendant agreed to pay privately. The District Court dismissed the action after excluding a document detailing telephone conversations, which plaintiff argued was admissible under the business records exception or relaxed commercial claims evidence rules. The Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal, ruling that plaintiff failed to prove the patient was injured during employment or that the document was admissible as a business record, thus failing to establish defendant's liability for the medical bill. The court emphasized that while commercial claims courts are not bound by strict evidence rules, judgments cannot rest solely on hearsay.

Commercial claimsMedical servicesUnpaid billsBusiness records exceptionHearsayEvidence rulesEmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial justice
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. WCK 0068998
Regular
Jan 22, 2008

LINDA FONTENOT vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES INC., PINNACLE RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded sanctions imposed against Barrett Business Services Inc. (represented by Pinnacle Risk Management Services) and its adjustor, Chamber Medical Collections, Inc. (CMC), for failing to appear at a hearing. The WCAB found that CMC provided a reasonable excuse for its non-appearance, supported by a doctor's note, and deemed the sanctions disproportionate. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other sanctions and the underlying lien claim.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanction OrdersLien ClaimantFailure to AppearWCJPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessReasonable ExcuseDoctor's Statement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fickling v. New York State Department of Civil Service

This case involves a lawsuit brought by eight plaintiffs, primarily African-American and Hispanic former employees, against the New York State Department of Civil Service and Westchester County Department of Social Services. Plaintiffs alleged that their termination as Welfare Eligibility Examiners, due to failing competitive examinations, was unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Executive Law § 296. They claimed the examination had a racially disparate impact and lacked content validity, failing to serve the defendants' employment goal of fair competition. The court found that the examinations indeed had a disparate impact on African-Americans and Hispanics and that the defendants failed to provide credible evidence that the tests served a legitimate business goal. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActDisparate ImpactCivil Service ExaminationsContent ValidityJob AnalysisRacial DiscriminationHispanic DiscriminationWelfare Eligibility ExaminersNew York State Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Indian Harbor Insurance v. Global Transport System, Inc.

Indian Harbor Global Insurance Company filed a complaint against Global Transport System seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to indemnify Global for the loss of Barge MST 17, and a stay of arbitration proceedings. Global moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, relying on a binding arbitration clause in their insurance policy. The dispute arose after the Barge MST 17 sank following Global's attempt to amend its policy for navigation coverage, which Indian Harbor claimed was not properly accepted. The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, granted Global's motion, dismissing the complaint and compelling Indian Harbor to proceed to arbitration, finding that the broad arbitration clause covered disputes regarding policy modifications or terminations.

Arbitration AgreementInsurance Coverage DisputeMaritime LawPolicy EndorsementContract InterpretationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureFederal Arbitration ActMotion to DismissDeclaratory ReliefSeaworthiness
References
19
Case No. 2018-962 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2019

Acupuncture Now, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins.

This case involves an appeal by Global Liberty Insurance from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County. The Civil Court had denied the insurer's cross motion for summary judgment in an action brought by Acupuncture Now, P.C., as assignee of Cleotilde Lozano, to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision. It found that Global Liberty Insurance had provided sufficient proof of timely mailing of denial of claim forms and had fully paid for the services according to the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture. Consequently, the Appellate Term granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, as the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTimely MailingDenial of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAcupuncture ServicesInsurance LawFirst-Party BenefitsCivil Court Appeal
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00187 [179 AD3d 1228]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Reardon v. Global Cash Card, Inc.

The case, Matter of Reardon v Global Cash Card, Inc., involves an appeal concerning the validity of 12 NYCRR part 192, regulations governing wage payment methods, including payroll debit cards, adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Global Cash Card, Inc., a payroll debit card service provider, challenged these regulations, leading to their revocation by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The Commissioner then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the IBA's determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the Commissioner acted within her delegated legislative authority in promulgating the regulations, despite modifying the order to strike certain extraneous proof.

Labor LawWage PaymentPayroll Debit CardsAdministrative RegulationsRule-making AuthorityIndustrial Board of Appeals (IBA)CPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCommissioner of Labor
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 8,023 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