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

Mulvihill v. New York

Plaintiff Donna Mulvihill, proceeding pro se, sued the State of New York alleging Fourth Amendment violations and state law claims related to Child Protective Services actions. The State moved to dismiss based on insufficient service and Eleventh Amendment immunity. Mulvihill attempted to amend her complaint twice, proposing various defendants. The court granted the State's motion to dismiss, confirming Eleventh Amendment immunity. It also ruled that 'Ontario County DSS' is not a suable entity and dismissed claims against Judge Doran due to judicial immunity. However, the court granted Mulvihill leave to file an amended complaint by August 15, 2013, to assert claims against Ontario County and individuals Holly Adams, Matt Grant, Rhonda Peterson, and Russ Standish.

Federal Civil ProcedureEleventh AmendmentJudicial ImmunityPro Se LitigantMotion to DismissLeave to AmendChild Protective ServicesConstitutional LawState ImmunityMunicipal Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. Morales

Plaintiff Sadie A. Rogers filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to declare the Texas Workers Compensation Law unconstitutional and claiming compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants, Texas Attorney General Dan Morales and Texas Workers Compensation Commission Executive Director Todd K. Brown, moved to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims for compensatory and punitive damages against the defendants in their official capacities with prejudice, citing Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The court further dismissed the claim challenging the constitutionality of the Texas Workers Compensation Act without prejudice, invoking the abstention doctrine to allow Texas state courts to interpret their own comprehensive workers' compensation statute, particularly concerning medically recognized diagnoses not listed in evaluation guides.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityAbstention DoctrineCivil Rights Act42 U.S.C. § 1983Workers' Compensation LawConstitutional LawFederal CourtDismissalState Statutes
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe Ex Rel. Hickey v. Jefferson County

Plaintiff John Doe, a seven-year-old child in the custody of the Jefferson County Department of Social Services (JCDSS), alleges he suffered severe physical and mental abuse while in foster care. He brings a negligence claim against defendant Sandra Walsemann, a certified social worker and his therapist at the Watertown Collaborative Day Treatment Program. Doe claims Walsemann failed to provide adequate psychological assessment and treatment, properly report the alleged child abuse, and recommend his removal from the foster home. Walsemann moved to dismiss the amended complaint on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure to state a claim for negligence, and qualified immunity. The Court denied Walsemann's motion in its entirety, finding that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit against her in her personal capacity, the allegations are sufficient to state a claim for negligence, and she is not entitled to qualified immunity.

NegligenceChild AbuseFoster CareSocial Worker LiabilityQualified ImmunityEleventh AmendmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionMotion to DismissNew York Social Services Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Services

Plaintiff Areline Soto sued her former employer, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Service (CPS), alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the ADA, and the Texas Workers’ Compensation Statute. CPS filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss certain claims, including ADA discrimination and retaliation claims and the Texas Anti-Retaliation Act claim, citing Eleventh Amendment immunity. Soto subsequently amended her complaint, replacing ADA claims with Rehabilitation Act claims, arguing the motion was moot. The Court granted CPS's motion, dismissing Soto's ADA claims as moot due to the amended complaint. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the Texas Anti-Retaliation Act claim with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, affirming CPS's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADATexas Workers' Compensation StatuteAnti-Retaliation ActRule 12(b)(1)Subject Matter JurisdictionEleventh Amendment ImmunitySovereign Immunity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2016

Estate of M.D. ex rel. DeCosmo v. New York

Plaintiffs, Louis DeCosmo, as administrator of M.D.'s estate and father of J.D., sued various state and county defendants, along with individuals, alleging constitutional rights violations, negligence, assault and battery, wrongful death, and survival action under state law. The claims stemmed from the alleged failure of child protective services to intervene effectively, leading to M.D.'s death and J.D.'s injuries while in their mother's custody and her abusive partner's care. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for state defendants and failure to state a claim for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, supervisory liability, and Monell liability for county defendants. The Court granted the State Defendants' motion based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, dismissing claims against New York State and OCFS. Claims against Dutchess DCFS and Ulster DSS were dismissed as they lack the capacity to be sued. The Court further dismissed Fourth Amendment claims due to a lack of alleged affirmative seizure by Dutchess Defendants and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims, finding no state-created danger or special relationship exception applied as M.D. and J.D. were not in state custody. Supervisory and Monell liability claims against county defendants also failed due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation and insufficient factual allegations of unconstitutional policies or customs. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Civil RightsChild AbuseGovernmental ImmunityEleventh AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment Due ProcessState-Created DangerSpecial RelationshipMonell DoctrineSupervisory Liability
References
82
Case No. 13-CV-7588 (RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

New York State Court Clerks Ass'n v. Unified Court System

The New York State Court Clerks Association and Monica Shaw Burns filed a lawsuit against several New York State Judges, the Unified Court System (UCS), and the Office of Court Administration (OCA), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to uncompensated overtime work. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, citing Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The court granted the motions, ruling that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against UCS, OCA, and the State Judges in their official capacities, as Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity under the FLSA. The court also found that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the State Judges were 'employers' under the FLSA's 'economic reality' test, and that employees cannot seek injunctive relief under FLSA. Consequently, the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Overtime WagesFair Labor Standards ActEleventh Amendment ImmunitySovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionState Judicial OfficialsOfficial Capacity SuitEconomic Reality Test
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plumey v. New York State

Plaintiff Milagio Plumey, a parole officer, initiated a lawsuit against New York State and individual defendants, alleging violations of her constitutional rights (First and Fourteenth Amendments), as well as rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Her claims stemmed from alleged discriminatory and retaliatory acts based on gender and a mental/emotional handicap during her employment, including verbal harassment, a hostile work environment, and disciplinary actions. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The court granted the motion, ruling that the claims against New York State were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were time-barred due to the statute of limitations. Furthermore, ADA claims against individual defendants were dismissed as there is no individual liability under the ADA, and against the State due to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationCivil RightsEqual ProtectionDue ProcessFirst AmendmentAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VIIStatute of LimitationsEleventh Amendment Immunity
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. City College of the City University of New York

Plaintiff Keith Hamilton, a student with dyslexia, sued City College of New York, Professor Phi-Sheng Ding, Professor J. Bar-shay, and Professor Alberto Guzman for alleged violations of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment, along with a state contract claim. Hamilton asserted that defendants failed to provide reasonable academic accommodations, specifically denying calculator use on a final exam despite his disability. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for the federal claims and lack of discriminatory animus. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on all federal claims, finding no evidence of discriminatory animus or ill will required to overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity, and dismissed the state contract claim without prejudice, declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Americans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActEleventh Amendment ImmunitySummary JudgmentAcademic AccommodationsDyslexiaHigher EducationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionState Contract Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2012

Pharmacy Buying Assoc., Inc. v. Sebelius

Plaintiffs, including independent pharmacies, pharmacists, and Medicaid recipients, filed a lawsuit against Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of HHS) and Kyle L. Janek (Executive Commissioner of HHSC) challenging Texas's Medicaid managed care "Demonstration Project." They alleged that the project resulted in inadequate pharmacy reimbursement rates and insufficient provider networks, violating federal Medicaid law. Janek moved to dismiss, arguing issues with standing and failure to state a claim. The court dismissed claims brought by Medicaid recipients for lack of standing and claims against Janek based on the Texas Constitution and for writ of mandamus due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Additionally, the court dismissed federal due process, equal protection, Section 30(A) claims under § 1983, and Supremacy Clause claims against Janek for failure to state a claim. However, the Provider Plaintiffs and Pharmacy Association (TrueCare) were found to have standing to assert claims on their own behalf. The court granted the motion to dismiss Janek's claims without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

MedicaidTexas Health and Human ServicesManaged CarePharmacy ReimbursementJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawConstitutional LawStandingSovereign ImmunityDue Process
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marley Co. v. Boston Old Colony Insurance

The State Insurance Fund (SIF) moved to dismiss a third-party action, arguing it was an 'alter ego' of New York State and thus immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The court examined the SIF's financial structure, noting its funds could be commingled with state funds and that New York State held ultimate liability for its obligations. Considering the SIF's role as a state agency within the Department of Labor, fulfilling a governmental function by providing workers' compensation insurance, the court concluded that the SIF was indeed an alter ego of the state. The court also found no clear and unequivocal waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity by the SIF. Consequently, the third-party action against the State Insurance Fund was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityState Insurance FundAlter Ego DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawIndemnity ClaimThird-Party ActionNew York State AgencyGovernmental Function
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 5,426 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