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. 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

Isereau v. Brushton-Moira School District

This case concerns consolidated appeals from Supreme Court orders granting petitioners Darrell Isereau and Jason K. Houghton leave to file late notices of claim against Brushton-Moira School District. The petitioners, employees of Bette & Cring, LLC, were injured in a construction accident in August 2002, sustaining falls of approximately 15 feet. They sought to file late notices of claim based on alleged incapacitation and the District's actual knowledge of the accident. The respondent District argued prejudice due to late notice and a subsequent insurance disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion as the District had actual notice of the essential facts, and the insurance disclaimer was attributed to the District Superintendent's failure, not the petitioners' delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySchool District LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall AccidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceInsurance Disclaimer
References
5
Case No. ADJ7192006
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

GENE GOODREAU vs. LAW OFFICES OF MARC ELLIOTT GROSSMAN, THE HARTFORD

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, Law Offices of Marc Elliott Grossman and The Hartford, regarding a prior Findings and Award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This reconsideration is necessary to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the record and facilitate a just decision. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the WCAB Commissioners' office in San Francisco, not with any district office or via e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemWCABLos Angeles District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agyeman v. Roosevelt Union Free School District

Plaintiff Ak-ousa Agyeman, an elementary school teacher, filed a civil rights action against the Roosevelt Union Free School District and several individuals, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Civil Service Law § 75-b. Agyeman claimed she was retaliated against for engaging in protected speech, specifically through internal emails and a letter to the New York State Education Department, regarding student needs, District policies, and alleged legal violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing her speech was not constitutionally protected. The Court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that Agyeman's speech was made as a public employee performing official duties, not as a private citizen, and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, the Section 1983 claim was dismissed, and the remaining state law claim was dismissed without prejudice for re-filing in state court.

First Amendment retaliationPublic employee speechCivil rights actionSummary judgmentNew York State law claimDismissal without prejudiceTeacher employment disputeSchool district liabilityFreedom of speechOfficial duties
References
56
Case No. ADJ6674320, ADJ4552593
Regular
Apr 23, 2018

KIMBERLY DE NOVA-JOY vs. SANTA PAULA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

In *De Nova-Joy v. Santa Paula Elementary School District*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a February 2, 2018 decision. The WCAB found reconsideration necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision. All future correspondence and filings related to the petition must be directed to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not district offices or e-filed via EAMS. Trial-level documents unrelated to the petition should continue to be e-filed, but proposed settlements require notification to the Appeals Board as a WCJ cannot act on them during reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationGrant of ReconsiderationSanta Paula Elementary School DistrictYork Risk Services GroupADJ6674320ADJ4552593San FranciscoEAMSAdministrative Director
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1983

Goosley v. Binghamton City School District Board of Education

An account clerk employed by a school district sought to enroll in her husband's dental plan after benefit coordination denied her deductible claims. Her application was denied, and a union grievance filed on her behalf was also denied, leading her to file a discrimination complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, which was dismissed, and that appeal is pending. She then commenced a breach of contract action in Supreme Court against the school district, seeking damages or specific performance for refusing to enroll her in the dental plan. The defendant moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing lack of standing and that the action was barred by the election of remedies under Executive Law § 297. Special Term denied these motions, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, concluding that the plaintiff had standing to bring the action and was not precluded by the election of remedies doctrine.

Breach of ContractCollective Bargaining AgreementDental PlanEmployee BenefitsGrievance ProcedureStanding (Law)Election of RemediesExecutive Law § 297Discrimination (Marital Status)Human Rights Appeal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Board of Education of Watertown City School District & Watertown Education Ass'n

This case consolidates two appeals, 'The Watertown Dispute' and 'The Indian River Dispute,' concerning public sector arbitration under New York's Taylor Law. Both cases involve education associations and school districts in disputes over changes to health insurance benefits, specifically increased employee copayments. The associations filed grievances, which the districts denied, leading to demands for arbitration. Lower courts granted stays of arbitration, applying the 'Liverpool two-step' protocol and finding the disputes non-arbitrable. The Court of Appeals reverses these decisions, clarifying that the 'Liverpool' protocol should be applied without an anti-arbitrational presumption. The Court emphasizes that the merits of a grievance are for the arbitrator, and a court's role is merely to determine if there's a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the collective bargaining agreement. Finding that health insurance benefits are clearly related to the CBAs, the Court compels arbitration in both cases.

Public Sector ArbitrationTaylor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrabilityHealth Insurance BenefitsCopayment IncreasesLiverpool Two-Step ProtocolJudicial Review of ArbitrationPresumption of ArbitrabilityCourt of Appeals (NY)
References
32
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. ADJ7722509
Regular
Jul 29, 2014

MORENA ARTIGA vs. SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. This action is taken to allow the WCAB further opportunity to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented. The purpose of this reconsideration is to ensure a complete understanding of the record for a just and reasoned decision. All future filings related to this case must be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners' office, not to any district office or via e-filing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration GrantedSan Mateo County Transit DistrictPetition for ReconsiderationFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemWCABADJ7722509Morena Artiga
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 11,850 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