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

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Henry v. Bass-Masci

Claimant, a home health aide for Beatrice Bass, sustained injuries in a bus accident and sought workers' compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found Elizabeth Bass-Masci, who paid claimant, to be the employer and liable under the Workers' Compensation Law. This determination was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Bass-Masci appealed, alleging claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by making false statements and that her due process rights were violated. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant did not violate § 114-a due to memory loss, and that the due process argument was waived due to an untimely request. Other contentions regarding claimant's withdrawal from the workforce and the identity of the employer were deemed unpreserved for review.

Home health aideBus accidentWork-related injuryEmployer liabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsFalse statementsDue process rightsCross-examinationMedical evidenceMemory loss
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howell v. County of Albany

A correction officer's General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits were suspended by the Albany County Sheriff after he refused a light duty assignment following a workplace injury in September 2009. The officer initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging due process violations because the Hearing Officer supposedly refused to consider proof of post-traumatic stress disorder and relied on evidence outside the record. The Court determined that the petitioner was afforded due process, noting that a predetermination hearing was held where he presented witnesses and cross-examined the respondents'. The Court found no violation of procedural due process as the petitioner did not raise a genuine dispute regarding his PTSD diagnosis before the hearing. Ultimately, the Court confirmed the determination to suspend benefits and dismissed the petition.

Due ProcessGeneral Municipal Law 207-cLight Duty AssignmentDisability BenefitsCorrection OfficerAdministrative HearingProcedural Due ProcessWorkers' Compensation ClaimPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCredibility Assessment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lacorte v. Hudacs

Plaintiffs Kenneth P. Lacorte and Lacorte Electrical Construction previously admitted to violating New York State Labor Laws by underpaying employees on public works projects, later pleading guilty to grand larceny. They filed a § 1983 complaint, alleging various defendants conspired to deprive them of due process by initiating unfounded investigations, distributing defamatory information, and drafting legislation to declare them "non-responsible" bidders, thus disqualifying them from public works contracts. Earlier motions to dismiss by state and union defendants were granted. This decision addresses motions by the Albany County defendants (County of Albany, Michael Polovina, Richard Meyers, and Frank Commisso) to dismiss the complaint or for judgment on the pleadings. The Court found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a cause of action for violation of due process rights as low bidders on an Albany County Airport public works contract and denied dismissal of conspiracy allegations. Defamation allegations were also found sufficiently pleaded as an invasion of the Due Process liberty interest in reputation. Finally, the Court denied legislative immunity to defendants Meyer and Commisso, characterizing their actions in awarding the contract as administrative. Therefore, all motions by the Albany defendants were denied.

Civil RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Public Works ContractsLow BidderDefamationLiberty InterestLegislative ImmunityAdministrative ActConspiracy
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2003

Brancato v. City of New York

Plaintiff Vincent Brancato sued the City of New York and several of its departments and officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Brancato claimed that the City failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before placing a lien on his Staten Island property for health code violations and associated cleanup costs. The court found that the initial notice of violation was sufficient for both the original and subsequent similar violations, citing the City's strong public health interest in summarily abating nuisances. Furthermore, the court noted that Brancato had post-deprivation remedies available through an Article 78 Proceeding. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that the City's procedures for addressing health code violations provided constitutionally sufficient due process.

Due ProcessFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. Section 1983Property LienHealth Code ViolationPublic Nuisance AbatementCity of New YorkNotice RequirementPre-deprivation HearingPost-deprivation Remedy
References
32
Case No. 1:12-cv-46
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2018

Lillian Roberts Dir. of Dist. Council 37, Afscme ex rel. Situated v. Cuomo

Plaintiffs, a group of active and retired New York State employees, sued the State and various officials, alleging that a unilateral increase in health insurance contributions for retirees violated the Contracts Clause and Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, breached their collective bargaining agreements, and violated state law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that no contractual right to perpetually fixed premium contribution rates existed and that the increase was a reasonable and necessary response to a significant fiscal crisis. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the collective bargaining agreements did not establish a vested right to fixed retiree health insurance rates and that the state's actions were a legitimate and necessary measure to address its financial distress. All of plaintiffs' claims, including those for breach of contract, due process violations, and state law violations, were dismissed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementHealth Insurance PremiumsRetiree BenefitsContracts ClauseDue Process ClauseSummary JudgmentFiscal CrisisState EmployeesCivil Service LawProperty Interest
References
81
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Orlik Ex Rel. Orlik v. Dutchess County

Plaintiff Sheryl Orlik, on behalf of herself and her son Jared, sued Dutchess County, the Dutchess County Department of Social Services (DSS), and several individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Orlik alleged violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, Fourth Amendment rights, and malicious prosecution stemming from the allegedly wrongful removal of Jared from her custody. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The court granted summary judgment, finding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the procedural due process claim was denied due to a brief removal period, the substantive due process claim lacked egregious official conduct, the Fourth Amendment claim was supported by a reasonable belief in probable cause, and the malicious prosecution claim was not clearly established for civil Family Court proceedings. The motion was deemed moot for defendant Allers as he was sued only in his official capacity.

Qualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentChild RemovalProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessFourth AmendmentMalicious ProsecutionSocial Services LawChild Protective ServicesFoster Care
References
33
Case No. ADJ11008178
Regular
Oct 09, 2020

JAMIE BODINE vs. EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS STAFFING GROUP II, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision awarding continuing temporary disability benefits to the applicant. The defendant argued that proceeding to trial on the issue of temporary disability violated its due process rights due to insufficient notice. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found that the defendant was not provided with proper notice regarding the temporary disability issue, thus violating its due process rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityDue ProcessExpedited HearingDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMedical TreatmentWork RestrictionsAccommodation
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 14,192 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