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

Henry C. v. Faith A.

Henry C., an incarcerated father, petitioned for visitation rights with his two children, Henry C. Jr. and Kelly Ann. The respondent, Faith (the natural mother), did not oppose visitation but sought limitations. A Law Guardian was appointed for the children and subsequently filed a motion requesting Henry C. to provide handwriting samples. This request aimed to verify the authorship of certain documents, including a birthday card that questioned Henry C.'s paternity and another containing hostile messages purportedly from the children. Henry C.'s counsel opposed the motion, arguing against the CPLR's applicability and the probative value of the samples. The court, emphasizing the best interest of the child in visitation cases and the broad scope of discovery, granted the Law Guardian's request for the handwriting samples, deeming them highly probative for the visitation determination.

Visitation RightsIncarcerated ParentHandwriting AnalysisBest Interest of the ChildParental RightsDiscoveryCPLR 3101Child CustodyPaternity DisputeEvidence Admissibility
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Henry Street Settlement

Lydia Garcia, an Hispanic female, was terminated from her employment at Henry Street Settlement after nearly 27 years. She filed a complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Henry Street argued that her position was eliminated due to a reduction in force caused by a loss of funding. Garcia also claimed a hostile work environment due to a Spanish-speaking policy and discriminatory denial of a new position. The court granted Henry Street's motion for summary judgment, finding that Garcia failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that Henry Street provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActReduction in ForcePretext for DiscriminationPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting Framework
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. NYC Health & Hospital Corp.

Plaintiff Collette Henry, an African-American woman, sued her employer, New York City Health & Hospital Corporation (HHC), and supervisors Arena and Boylan, alleging race and gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Henry claimed Arena made racially charged remarks, mocked her appearance, and subjected her to adverse employment actions after she complained. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the federal and state discrimination and retaliation claims, finding Henry failed to plausibly allege an adverse employment action or discriminatory intent. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her city-law NYCHRL claims.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981NYSHRLNYCHRLMotion to DismissAdverse Employment Action
References
79
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00118 [190 AD3d 489]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Henry v. Split Rock Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC

Plaintiff Ian Henry, an HVAC technician, was injured on January 24, 2014, at Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, when a circuit breaker allegedly exploded. He was inspecting a newly installed rooftop air conditioning unit and was escorted to an electrical room by a Split Rock employee. Split Rock moved for summary judgment, arguing Henry's failure to turn off the power caused the incident, but Henry testified the power was already off. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the motion, finding unresolved factual issues regarding the accident's cause and whether the risks were readily observable. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that material issues of fact remained for trial.

Summary JudgmentHVAC TechnicianWorkplace AccidentCircuit Breaker ExplosionMaterial Issues of FactObservable RisksNegligenceThird-Party DefendantAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2012

Henry v. Astrue

This case involves Jeffrey M. Henry's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, which was denied by the Commissioner of Social Security. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denying the Commissioner's, and remanding the case for further administrative proceedings. The District Court adopted this Report-Recommendation, emphasizing the need for further development of the record regarding the treating physician's opinion on the claimant's gastrointestinal limitations and the claimant's credibility. The remand requires the Administrative Law Judge to re-evaluate these aspects.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActJudicial ReviewReport and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleGastrointestinal ImpairmentMental Impairment
References
113
Case No. CV-24-0453
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Henry Cho

Claimant Henry Cho appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board disallowing his request to amend an established claim for chemical sensitivity to include consequential psychological injuries. Cho alleged that anxiety, depression, and insomnia resulted from fear of returning to his original work location and harassment by his supervisor. However, the Board found no direct or natural causal relationship, noting that an accommodation for his work location had been approved. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the psychological injuries were not a direct consequence of the chemical sensitivity or the alleged harassment.

Consequential InjuriesPsychological ConditionsChemical SensitivityCausal RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceHarassmentWork-Related StressBoard DeterminationMedical EvidenceAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2008

Henry v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Gary Henry, a former UPS employee, sought to vacate an arbitration award upholding his termination for sexual harassment. The Union filed a grievance on his behalf, leading to arbitration before Arbitrator Carol Wittenberg. Henry alleged the Union breached its duty of fair representation (DFR) by providing inadequate advice and representation, causing delay, and discouraging independent counsel. The court found Henry's allegations insufficient to establish a breach of DFR, stating that negligence is not enough and that Henry failed to show the Union's conduct undermined the arbitration outcome. Additionally, Henry failed to allege a violation of the collective bargaining agreement by UPS. Therefore, the court granted UPS's motion to dismiss Henry's amended petition.

Arbitration Award VacaturDuty of Fair RepresentationSexual HarassmentCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissFederal Labor LawEmployee TerminationGrievance ArbitrationSecond Circuit PrecedentDistrict Court Ruling
References
20
Case No. CV-23-2290
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Henry Fiallos Fonseca

Claimant Henry Fiallos Fonseca sustained work-related injuries while employed by Platinum Carpentry Inc., which had a contract with Cornerstone Underwriters, LLC, a professional employer organization (PEO), for workers' compensation coverage through United Wisconsin Insurance Co. (UWIC). UWIC denied coverage, arguing Fonseca was not on Platinum's payroll and thus not covered by the PEO agreement. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found Fonseca to be a dual employee, making UWIC the proper carrier. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this, ruling that Fonseca was not a leased/worksite employee because Platinum failed to provide the required hiring paperwork to Cornerstone. Consequently, Fonseca remained an employee of Platinum alone, leading the Board to place the Uninsured Employers Fund back on notice for penalties against Platinum. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationProfessional Employer OrganizationCo-employmentLeased EmployeeInsurance Coverage DenialUninsured Employers FundAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationLabor LawPayroll Omission
References
4
Case No. 608894/17
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Medina-Arana v. Henry St. Prop. Holdings, LLC

The plaintiff, Elio Medina-Arana, sustained personal injuries after falling from a scaffold at a construction site owned by Henry Street Property Holdings, LLC. He initiated an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied parts of the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified this order, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1), citing triable issues of fact regarding the scaffold's safety. Furthermore, the Appellate Division granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, as the defendant lacked supervisory control over the work methods. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241(6) claim related to Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-5.1(b).

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-5.1(b)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPremises Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Rosemary Faele, a nurse at Coney Island Hospital, sustained an eye irritation and received brief examinations from defendants Dr. Barry Eppinger and Dr. An-nan Das in the hospital's emergency room. Her condition worsened, and she was later diagnosed with a severe eye infection by a private ophthalmologist. Though compensated via Workers' Compensation, Faele and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action against the doctors and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a sufficient nexus existed between Faele's employment and the alleged malpractice, thereby precluding a common-law malpractice claim and limiting her recourse to Workers' Compensation.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation PreclusionSummary Judgment AffirmationEmployment-Related InjuryHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical TreatmentAppellate Division DecisionPersonal InjuryDoctor-Patient NexusConey Island Hospital
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,422 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