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

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howell v. County of Albany

A correction officer's General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits were suspended by the Albany County Sheriff after he refused a light duty assignment following a workplace injury in September 2009. The officer initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging due process violations because the Hearing Officer supposedly refused to consider proof of post-traumatic stress disorder and relied on evidence outside the record. The Court determined that the petitioner was afforded due process, noting that a predetermination hearing was held where he presented witnesses and cross-examined the respondents'. The Court found no violation of procedural due process as the petitioner did not raise a genuine dispute regarding his PTSD diagnosis before the hearing. Ultimately, the Court confirmed the determination to suspend benefits and dismissed the petition.

Due ProcessGeneral Municipal Law 207-cLight Duty AssignmentDisability BenefitsCorrection OfficerAdministrative HearingProcedural Due ProcessWorkers' Compensation ClaimPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCredibility Assessment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF HEMPSTEAD SCHOOL D.

The plaintiff, a tenured Director of Pupil Personnel Services for the Hempstead School District, had his position eliminated. A new position, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, was created with similar duties, but the plaintiff was not offered it nor given a pre-termination hearing. The plaintiff sued, alleging violations of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and New York Education Law section 2510(1). The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff was deprived of a property right without procedural due process. The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a pre-termination hearing on the 'similarity' of the positions. A trial is deemed necessary to determine the actual similarity of the jobs and whether the plaintiff suffered actual injury from the denial of due process.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentProperty InterestTenured AdministratorPosition EliminationPre-termination HearingJob SimilarityEducation LawMotion to DismissCompensatory Damages
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruggiero v. Prack

Plaintiff, an inmate, asserts multiple claims against correctional facility staff and DOCCS officials, including denial of due process at disciplinary hearings, retaliation, and cruel and inhumane conditions of confinement. The claims stem from his time at Southport Correctional Facility, specifically regarding mechanical restraints, exposure to health risks from unsupervised inmate porters, and exercise deprivations. The court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The judge granted summary judgment for defendant Bartlett on one due process claim but denied it for other defendants on retaliation and Eighth Amendment claims. Plaintiff's due process claim against Donahue for the November 2010 hearing was granted on liability. The case will proceed on several issues, including the mechanical restraint policy against Fischer and Prack, and Eighth Amendment claims against multiple defendants.

Inmate rightsDue ProcessEighth AmendmentCruel and unusual punishmentRetaliationPrison conditionsMechanical restraintsDisciplinary hearingsCorrectional facilitiesSummary judgment
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2003

Matter of Tyk v. New York State Educ. Dept.

Aaron Tyk, an impartial hearing officer (IHO), challenged the New York State Education Department's revocation of his authority without a hearing via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Commissioner alleged that Tyk had used inflammatory language in decisions, failed to write decisions on time, did not grant adjournments, and failed to follow security rules. Tyk contended that revoking his certification without an opportunity for a hearing violated his due process rights by damaging his reputation and affecting his ability to earn a living. The court, citing various precedents on due process, agreed that Tyk was entitled to a hearing. It found the revocation arbitrary and capricious, granting the petitioner's application and ordering the Commissioner to conduct a hearing within 60 days, failing which reinstatement would be ordered.

Due ProcessImpartial Hearing OfficerIHO RevocationAdministrative LawConstitutional LawLiberty InterestProperty InterestReputation DamageHearing RightsEducation Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gordon v. Brown

A New York City police officer, referred to as 'Petitioner,' underwent a random drug screening in June 1991, testing positive for cocaine. Subsequently, he was charged with violating department rules and faced an administrative hearing. During the hearing, Dr. William Closson, the Director of Forensic Toxicology at Brunswick Hospital Center, testified regarding the EMIT and GC/MS tests performed on the petitioner's urine specimen. However, the laboratory technicians who conducted the tests were not produced for cross-examination. Petitioner was terminated based on the hearing officer's findings. He challenged his termination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging a denial of due process due to the inability to cross-examine the technicians. The Appellate Division confirmed the Commissioner's determination, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that due process did not require the production of the laboratory personnel where the general reliability of the procedures was not disputed, the supervisor was subject to cross-examination, and no specific testing defect was claimed. The court also found the termination penalty was not unduly harsh.

due processadministrative lawpolice disciplinedrug screeningurinalysis testcocaine ingestionevidence rulescross-examination rightslaboratory proceduresforensic evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2009

Nnebe v. Daus

This case involves a putative class action brought by taxi drivers and the New York Taxi Workers Alliance against officials of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and the City of New York. Plaintiffs challenged the TLC's policy of summarily suspending taxi drivers' licenses upon arrest without a pre-deprivation hearing, arguing violations of procedural and substantive due process, and Fifth Amendment rights. The court dismissed claims against the TLC due to its non-suable status and found the NYTWA lacked standing. Ultimately, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all federal claims, determining that neither a pre-deprivation hearing nor a more extensive post-deprivation hearing was constitutionally required given the governmental interest in public safety. The court also rejected substantive due process and fair notice challenges, and dismissed the Fifth Amendment claim. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, closing the case.

Taxi LicensureSummary SuspensionDue ProcessFourteenth AmendmentFifth AmendmentClass ActionStandingGovernmental ImmunityAdministrative LawPublic Safety
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fiorella v. Village of Scarsdale

A civil service police lieutenant for the Village of Scarsdale, injured on duty, was removed from the payroll without a hearing after a village doctor deemed him fit for limited duty, contradicting his treating physician's assessment. The petitioner challenged this action as a violation of his due process rights, arguing he was entitled to a hearing under Civil Service Law § 75 and other statutes before removal. The village contended it acted properly under General Municipal Law § 207-c(3) for non-performance, asserting no hearing was required. The court found that as a permanent civil service employee, the petitioner possessed a property interest protected by due process, mandating a hearing for alleged incompetency or misconduct. Consequently, the petition was granted, ordering the Village of Scarsdale to reinstate the petitioner with back pay and benefits from December 6, 1977.

Civil Service LawGeneral Municipal LawDue ProcessPolice OfficerWrongful TerminationReinstatementBack PayWork-related InjuryLimited DutyInsubordination
References
9
Case No. ADJ1876237 (LAO 0757104) ADJ1130295 (LAO 0765693)
Regular
Feb 05, 2009

,\ TAMIKA MURRAY, vs. ,\ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that dismissed the applicant's petitions to reopen for new and further disability. The WCAB found that the applicant may not have received proper notice of the Mandatory Settlement Conference and hearing, thus potentially violating due process. Furthermore, the WCAB noted a lack of proof of service in the record for the dismissal hearing. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision due to these due process concerns.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue ProcessProof of ServiceWCAB ProceedingsFindings and OrderRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 12,265 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