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

Forsyth v. Staten Island Developmental Disabilities Services Office

The claimant, a lifeguard, sustained head and shoulder injuries in an automobile accident while working for the Staten Island Developmental Disabilities Services Office. His workers' compensation benefits were calculated based on concurrent employment, including seasonal work for the City of New York. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the finding of concurrent employment, a decision which was subsequently appealed by the employer and its carrier. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support the finding of concurrent employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 [6], given the claimant's long history of working for both employers during the same periods.

concurrent employmentaverage weekly wageworkers' compensationlifeguard injuryseasonal employmentappellate reviewNew York labor law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boodram v. Brooklyn Developmental Center

Plaintiff Indra Boodram sued her employer, Brooklyn Developmental Center, for sexual harassment, alleging a hostile work environment. A jury found in her favor, awarding $798,000 in damages. The court had previously dismissed a co-worker, Joseph Adiego, from the suit. The Brooklyn Developmental Center moved to set aside the verdict. The court largely affirmed the jury's findings on hostile work environment and most damage awards. However, it conditionally granted a new trial on damages, reducing the future lost earnings award from $392,000 to $350,000, contingent on the plaintiff's acceptance.

Hostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentHuman Rights LawExecutive Law § 296Jury Verdict ReviewDamages AssessmentEmotional DistressLost EarningsPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderPsychiatric Expert Testimony
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Texaco Inc.

Texaco Inc. and its two subsidiaries, Texaco Capital Inc. and Texaco Capital N.V., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Texaco sought to extend the exclusive periods for filing a reorganization plan, citing the massive size of the case, over 300,000 creditors, and the pending appeal of a $10.3 billion judgment against it by Pennzoil Company. Pennzoil, a leading general unsecured creditor, moved to reduce these exclusivity periods to propose its own creditor's plan. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Howard Schwartzberg, considered the unprecedented size and complexity of Texaco's bankruptcy case, which is the largest ever filed in the U.S., and the unresolved multi-billion dollar Pennzoil judgment. The court found that Texaco had established sufficient cause for an extension, while Pennzoil failed to demonstrate cause for reduction. Consequently, Texaco's motion to extend the exclusivity periods by another 120 and 180 days was granted, and Pennzoil's motion to shorten them was denied.

BankruptcyChapter 11Exclusivity PeriodPlan of ReorganizationCorporate DebtorsComplex LitigationDebtor-Creditor DisputeJudgment AppealSouthern District of New YorkCorporate Restructuring
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Friedman

This case examines whether claimants are eligible for unemployment benefits for a week in July during which they received vacation pay from their employer. The court references a previous decision, *Matter of Miranda* (Catherwood), which allowed such benefits under certain conditions. However, the court highlights that subdivision 3 of section 591 of the Labor Law was amended in 1963 specifically to correct inequities and prevent employees from receiving both vacation pay and unemployment benefits for the same period. Despite the board's finding that the union agreement did not designate a vacation period, the court interpreted the agreement's clauses as designating the first week in July for vacation. The court concluded that upholding the board's original decision would undermine the legislative intent of the 1963 amendment. Consequently, the court reversed the board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsVacation PayLabor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCollective Bargaining AgreementBoard Decision ReversalRemandWorkers' RightsEmployer Obligations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1982

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Roberts

ABC, a telecommunications company, was cited for violating Labor Law § 162(3) for not providing a second meal period to employees working specific shifts. ABC challenged the violation, arguing the law did not apply to their industry or skilled workers, and that their collective bargaining agreement waived or substantially complied with the requirement. The Industrial Board of Appeals affirmed the violation, but Special Term annulled this decision, concluding that employees could waive the statutory meal period benefit through their labor contracts. The current court's majority affirmed Special Term's judgment. A dissenting opinion argued that Labor Law § 162(3) is a public policy health measure designed for worker protection and therefore cannot be waived by private agreements or collective bargaining, emphasizing that the statute's 'every person' language applies broadly.

Labor LawMeal PeriodsWaiver of Statutory RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyTelecommunications IndustryIndustrial CommissionerIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Mark C.H.

This case addresses whether New York's SCPA article 17-A, governing guardianship for persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, meets constitutional standards without requiring periodic reporting and review. The facts involve Mark C.H., an adult with profound autism and mental retardation, for whom a $3 million trust existed but whose guardians (petitioner, his late mother's attorney, and a corporate bank) initially failed to use funds for his benefit, leading to suboptimal care. The court, applying the Mathews v Eldridge test and considering international human rights norms, found that the significant infringement on a ward's liberty interests necessitates periodic oversight. Consequently, the court held that article 17-A must be read to include a requirement for yearly reporting and judicial review for guardians of the person. The guardianship for Mark C.H. was granted to the petitioner with this new yearly reporting obligation.

GuardianshipDue ProcessMental RetardationDevelopmental DisabilitiesSCPA Article 17-APeriodic ReviewWard's RightsTrust Funds MismanagementMedical Care AccessConstitutional Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1992

Boykins v. Syracuse Developmental Center

The claimant suffered two separate work-related injuries: a knee injury in 1981 while employed by Kelsey-Hayes Company, resulting in permanent partial disability, and a herniated disc in 1987 while working for Syracuse Developmental Center, leading to total permanent disability. Prior to the second injury, her initial compensation award was reduced due to lower wages at Syracuse. The Workers’ Compensation Board apportioned a new award of $244.83, with contributions from both employers. Syracuse appealed, challenging the concurrent awards. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that concurrent awards for distinct injuries in different employments are permissible as long as the total award does not exceed the statutory maximum.

permanent partial disabilitytotal permanent disabilityconcurrent awardsdifferent employmentsstatutory maximumwage lossapportionment of awardknee injuryherniated discWorkers' Compensation Board appeal
References
2
Case No. ADJ8160275
Regular

FAITH YOUNG vs. FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In *Young v. Fairview Developmental Services*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant Faith Young's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) without providing independent grounds. Consequently, the WCAB affirmed the denial of reconsideration in this case.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportAdministrative Law JudgeLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ8160275Anaheim District OfficeFaith Young
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2017

Maioriello v. New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff, Mary Maioriello, a former Developmental Aide Trainee at NYS OPWDD, filed a retaliation action against NYS OPWDD and several individual defendants. She alleged retaliation after reporting abuse of disabled clients, leading to a 'campaign of retaliation and harassment' including multiple interrogations, administrative leave, transfer to another facility, and constructive discharge. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff's claims were time-barred and that their actions were legitimate, non-retaliatory, and pursuant to established policy. The Court granted Defendants' motion, finding that Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding retaliatory acts within the statute of limitations, particularly concerning the conversion of her medical leave to unauthorized leave without pay, and dismissed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as time-barred. The Court also disregarded Plaintiff's newly raised workers' compensation claim.

RetaliationWhistleblowerWorkplace HarassmentConstructive DischargeStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights LawEmployment Law
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 2,338 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