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

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. ADJ7872929
Regular
Aug 26, 2013

SAMUEL FRANCO vs. JCT COMPANY, INC.; FIRSTCOMP OMAHA, ENDURANCE SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the appealed order was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted the applicant's alternative Petition for Removal, recognizing significant prejudice to the applicant due to the inconvenience and cost of appearing at the Long Beach District Office. Consequently, the WCAB ordered the case transferred to the Van Nuys District Office for venue. The WCAB also cautioned the applicant's attorney regarding the inappropriate filing of a reconsideration petition on a non-final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalPetition to Change of VenueWCJCumulative Industrial InjuryDelivery DriverLower ExtremitiesBackHipHernia
References
13
Case No. 01 Civ. 2835
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Eastchester Union Free School District

Oswald Johnson, a 69-year-old cleaner, sued the Eastchester Union Free School District for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after his job location and hours were changed. The school district moved for summary judgment, arguing Johnson failed to establish an adverse employment action or an inference of discrimination. The court found that mere inconvenience from a lateral transfer and shift change, without a reduction in wages or altered job responsibilities, does not constitute a materially adverse employment action. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence did not support an inference of age discrimination, as other employees of varying ages also experienced job assignment changes, and the decision-maker was also over 40. The court also found the mandatory physical examination, which revealed Johnson's cataracts, was job-related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the court granted summary judgment to the Eastchester Union Free School District, dismissing the complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionDisparate TreatmentADEALateral TransferShift ChangePhysical ExaminationPrima Facie Case
References
29
Case No. ADJ9258192 (Van Nuys District Office) ADJ1460512 (NOR 0187897) (Los Angeles District Office) ADJ3082172 (MON 0248019) (Marina del Rey District Office)
Regular
Jul 10, 2015

THOMAS SENCZAKIEWICZ vs. BOEING COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

In this workers' compensation case, the Applicant Thomas Senczakiewicz sought reconsideration of a decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted reconsideration to allow further study of the factual and legal issues involved. This means the previous decision is vacated, and the WCAB will review the case further to issue a just decision. All future correspondence related to the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB's Commissioners' office in San Francisco.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Trial Level DocumentsProposed Settlement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S & L BIRCHWOOD, LLC v. LFC Capital, Inc.

Plaintiffs, S & L Birchwood, LLC and S & L Birchwood Realty, LLC, filed a breach of contract action against LFC Capital, Inc., following a dispute over a medical equipment lease. LFC alleged default, and S&L initiated a declaratory judgment action in New York state court, which was subsequently removed to federal court. LFC moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, citing a forum-selection clause in their agreement. The court analyzed the enforceability of the clause, determining it to be mandatory due to language of 'irrevocable submission' to Illinois jurisdiction, despite not explicitly using 'must' or 'may'. Consequently, the court denied LFC's motion to dismiss but granted the request for transfer, concluding that venue was improper in the Eastern District of New York and that transfer to the Northern District of Illinois was warranted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a).

Forum selection clauseBreach of contractDiversity jurisdictionTransfer of venueDismissal motionIllinois contract lawNew York jurisdictionMedical equipment leasingMandatory clause interpretationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)
References
14
Case No. ADJ8962530
Regular
Oct 05, 2015

Angelina Campos vs. INTEGRATED HEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who initially filed in Santa Barbara but was rerouted to Oxnard and then San Luis Obispo. The applicant, now represented, sought to transfer venue back to Santa Barbara, arguing it was the proper location due to her residence, attorney's office, and original filing intent. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's denial, and ordered the venue transferred to Santa Barbara, finding it a valid district office with full services. The decision emphasizes that venue is mandatory in the county of residence or attorney's principal place of business if a district office exists there.

WCABPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5Pro PerSan Luis Obispo District OfficeSanta Barbara District OfficeOxnard District OfficeApplication for Adjudication of ClaimCumulative Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1995

Lewis v. Summit Office Supply, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Manhattan Transfer, Inc., was injured by a forklift operated by defendant Vincent Carbone, an employee of Summit Office Supply, Inc. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendants. The defendants asserted an affirmative defense, arguing that workers' compensation was the plaintiff's sole remedy. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, finding that Vincent Carbone was a special employee of Manhattan Transfer, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Vincent Carbone was a coemployee of the plaintiff, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6].

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee LiabilityAffirmative DefenseAppellate Court DecisionForklift AccidentEmployment Relationship
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. District Council of New York City

This civil RICO action involves a motion by the government to hold the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and its president, Peter Thomassen, in contempt of a 1994 consent decree. The central issue is whether collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) enacted in 2001, which modified job referral rules (specifically the "50/50 Rule" and the "Request System"), violated the consent decree by not providing prior notice to the government. The government argued that these changes diluted fair job assignments. The District Council contended that the consent decree's notice requirements did not extend to CBAs and that the changes were made to enhance union contractors' competitiveness. The court denied the government's motion, concluding that while the consent decree's notice provision was broad, it explicitly excluded CBAs from review by court officers, rendering the decree's applicability to future CBAs at best ambiguous and thus not a basis for a contempt finding.

RICO ActionLabor OrganizationConsent DecreeContempt MotionCollective Bargaining AgreementsJob Referral Rules50/50 RuleRequest SystemUnion GovernanceOrganized Crime
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Eastern District Repetitive Stress Injury Litigation

The defendants sought to transfer 78 repetitive stress injury (RSI) cases from the Eastern District of New York to districts where the claims arose, also seeking severance of individual claims. Over 450 RSI cases, involving over 1,000 plaintiffs against more than 100 equipment manufacturers, were initially consolidated in the Eastern District. However, the Second Circuit later vacated the consolidation orders, finding it an abuse of discretion due to lack of common facts and varying state laws. Relying on this guidance, the court granted transfer in 75 cases and denied it in three, citing factors such as convenience of parties and witnesses, judicial economy, and the public interest in local adjudication of local controversies. The court also ordered severance where necessary to facilitate transfer.

Transfer of VenueMultidistrict LitigationRepetitive Stress InjuryProducts LiabilityForum Non ConveniensSeverance of ClaimsConsolidation of CasesJudicial EconomyWitness ConvenienceChoice of Forum
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 5,243 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