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

Donegan v. Nadell

Petitioner Donegan, employed in Nassau courts since 1967, was promoted to Court Assistant II and began performing data entry duties following the installation of a computer system in 1973. However, the job specifications for her title did not include computer skills. When a new statewide classification plan was implemented, her position was converted to Principal Office Assistant, a title also lacking data entry duties. Donegan challenged this classification, arguing her actual duties warranted a classification as Data Entry Supervisor. Despite her grievance being partially granted and a provisional appointment to the data entry supervisor role, she was ineligible for permanent appointment due to not taking the required competitive examination. The court affirmed the administrative decision, emphasizing that civil service classifications must be based on "in-title" duties defined by job specifications, not "out-of-title" work performed, and that data entry skills required distinct competitive testing.

Civil Service LawJob ClassificationOut-of-Title WorkData Entry SupervisorPrincipal Office AssistantCourt AssistantPromotional ExaminationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Accardi v. Control Data Corp.

This case, a Memorandum and Order by District Judge Whitman Knapp, addresses an ERISA action where plaintiffs sought severance pay from their former employer, Control Data Corporation (CDC), following the sale of their division to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP). Plaintiffs, initially employees of an IBM subsidiary, had their benefits, including severance pay, protected by a "Benefits Agreement" adopted by CDC upon acquisition. CDC denied severance, arguing the IBM plan didn't cover divestitures and citing its own policy. The court, applying an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, found CDC's interpretation of the IBM benefits plan, which it had adopted, to be clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the IBM plan indeed provided for severance in cases of dismissals due to division sales and did not require unemployment or prohibit "double recovery." Consequently, the court denied CDC's motion for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiffs.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationsCorporate DivestitureAcquisitionBenefit Plan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardControl Data Corporation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1998

Correia v. Professional Data Management, Inc.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by Creative Finishes, Ltd., fell 16 feet from an elevated platform while working at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan, sustaining multiple fractures. He initiated an action against the building owner (Professional Data Management, Inc.), construction manager (Gotham Construction Corp.), and building manager (Williamson, Picket & Gross, Inc.), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Gotham subsequently impleaded Creative Finishes, Ltd. for contractual and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied Gotham's cross-motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no evidence to support a recalcitrant worker defense and noting that factual questions regarding Gotham's own negligence, distinct from its statutory liability, precluded summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim.

Labor LawScaffoldingAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseGeneral Obligations LawConstruction AccidentPainter Fall
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 1994

New York County Data Entry Worker Product Liability Litigation v. A.B. Dick Co.

In the case of Hulse v. A.B. Dick Co., a products liability action concerning repetitive stress injury, the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order preventing the preverdict disclosure of settlement materials to non-settling defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that the settlement materials were not 'material and necessary' to the defense, with the exception of the settlement amount for post-verdict apportionment under General Obligations Law § 15-108. The court also rejected the arguments that the materials were useful for assessing settlement exposure or impeachment, deeming such uses speculative. Finally, the court found no merit in the argument that settlement proceeds constituted a collateral source under CPLR 4545 (c).

Products LiabilityRepetitive Stress InjuryProtective OrderSettlement AgreementConfidentialityDiscoveryApportionmentCollateral Source RuleImpeachmentTrial Strategy
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2006

Claim of McKenzie v. UJA-FED

Claimant, employed in data entry, developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and sought workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially dismissed the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the condition to be an occupational disease causally related to employment, based on agreement between the treating physician and an independent medical examiner, and the carrier's failure to request cross-examination. The carrier appealed, arguing the Board erred in its finding regarding cross-examination and mischaracterized medical evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the carrier waived its right to cross-examination by not making a timely request and finding no basis to disturb the Board's assessment of the medical evidence.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeWorkers' CompensationMedical EvidenceCross-Examination WaiverAppellate ReviewCausationEmployment-Related InjuryMedical Expert TestimonyBoard Decision Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1996

Blanco v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

This opinion addresses numerous plaintiffs' appeals concerning repetitive stress injuries (RSI) allegedly caused by data entry keyboards, focusing on the applicable Statute of Limitations. The court determined that CPLR 214-c (the 'toxic tort' statute, which allows discovery-based accrual) does not apply to keyboard injuries because a keyboard is not a 'substance.' Instead, the traditional CPLR 214 rule applies, meaning the cause of action accrues upon the initial use of the allegedly defective keyboard, irrespective of when symptoms manifest. The decision led to the dismissal of many complaints as time-barred, while reinstating others where the first use fell within the three-year statutory period. The court acknowledged the harsh outcome and suggested legislative intervention for such unique injuries.

Repetitive Strain InjuryStatute of LimitationsProduct LiabilityToxic TortCPLR 214CPLR 214-cKeyboard InjuryAccrual of Cause of ActionDiscovery RuleAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2001

Hahne v. State

Claimant Jacqueline Hahne, a data entry clerk for the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in Essex County, alleged assault by inmate Jose Ortiz during a work release program at DEC headquarters. Ortiz, performing janitorial duties, reportedly touched Hahne's face and attempted to kiss her. Hahne and her husband filed a claim against the State, asserting vicarious liability for Ortiz's actions. The Court of Claims dismissed the claim, determining that workers' compensation was Hahne's exclusive remedy. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, as there was no evidence the assault was directed by the employer, nor could the State be held liable under respondeat superior since Ortiz's act was solely for personal motives and unrelated to his duties. Furthermore, no evidence supported a claim of negligent supervision due to a lack of prior knowledge of Ortiz's propensity for such conduct.

Workers' CompensationVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNegligent SupervisionIntentional TortAssaultEmployee InjuryState LiabilityInmate Work ReleaseExclusive Remedy
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Claim of Salatti v. Crucible Materials Corp.

The claimant, a data entry clerk, sustained work-related injuries to their left wrist. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded lost wage benefits and directed employer reimbursement on May 2, 2003. The employer's carrier appealed, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the reimbursement order on August 5, 2003. Subsequently, the claimant's attorney challenged the reimbursement direction, but the WCLJ, in a June 8, 2005 decision, declined to address it due to untimeliness, as the issue was not raised in the initial appeal. The Board denied full review of this issue. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion regarding the timeliness of review applications under Workers' Compensation Law § 23, and finding no abuse of discretion in deeming the claimant's request untimely.

Workers' CompensationUntimely AppealEmployer ReimbursementBoard DiscretionLost Wage BenefitsWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewSection 23
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Curtis v. Xerox

The claimant, employed for 33 years in data entry, developed severe pain in her wrists, hands, and fingers, leading to a workers’ compensation claim. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied benefits, finding no prima facie evidence. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board twice reversed, first directing the employer to produce medical records and later drawing an inference of a causally related occupational disease due to the employer's failure to comply. The Board also precluded lay testimony regarding the nonexistence of these records. On appeal by the employer and carrier, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the Board properly precluded the testimony and drew a negative inference. The court also found substantial medical evidence from treating and independent physicians supported the finding of a work-related occupational disease and confirmed the Board's jurisdiction to remand the case for further proceedings concerning a new diagnosis of bilateral ulnar neuropathy.

Occupational diseaseCarpal tunnel syndromeBilateral ulnar neuropathyData entryMedical recordsNegative inferenceAdjournmentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewSubstantial evidence
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 226 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