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

City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Personnel Director challenged the City Civil Service Commission's decision to grant veterans' preference credits to police officers who performed a few hours of active duty during a 1970 postal strike. The Court of Appeals found that the Personnel Director had standing to sue, rejecting the argument of an intra-agency dispute due to the Director's policy-making and enforcement authority over civil service laws. On the merits, the Court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that veterans' credits are intended for individuals whose full-time military service significantly disrupted their civilian lives, a condition not met by the police officers' brief service. The court clarified that mere literal fulfillment of "time of war" and "member of the armed forces" definitions is insufficient without demonstrable sacrifice. Therefore, the orders awarding the preference credits were annulled, emphasizing the restrictive interpretation of such preferences in competitive civil service systems.

Veterans' preference creditsCivil Service LawStanding to sueArticle 78 proceedingMunicipal civil service commissionPersonnel DirectorJudicial review of administrative decisionsArmed Forces reservistsActive dutyConstitutional interpretation
References
17
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05923
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2025

Pacheco v. Georgetown Eleventh Ave. Owners LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, partially modified an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The court affirmed the denial of Cauldwell-Wingate Co. LLC's motion to dismiss Georgetown Eleventh Avenue Owners LLC's contractual indemnification cause of action, citing that applying the anti-subrogation rule was premature given the insurer's potential withdrawal of defense and indemnification. The denial of dismissal for common-law indemnification was also affirmed due to incomplete discovery on the plaintiff's 'grave injury.' However, the court ruled that Georgetown's claim for attorneys' fees should have been dismissed as duplicative and lacking a fee-shifting provision. Additionally, Georgetown's breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed as untimely, having accrued upon the contract's execution in July 2016.

IndemnityContractual IndemnificationAnti-Subrogation RuleCounsel FeesFee-Shifting ProvisionCommon-Law IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryBreach of ContractFailure to Procure Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. ADJ2926040 (AHM 0082411)
Regular
Feb 01, 2013

HEIDI RIDDLE LEON vs. ELEVENTH HOUR PERSONNEL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERIOR NATIONAL, IN LIGGIDATION, STEELCASE INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE

Defendant CIGA seeks reconsideration of a dismissal order that erroneously dismissed the entire case, including CIGA's unresolved reimbursement claim against Wausau Insurance. The original dismissal was intended to address the applicant's failure to appear, but it overlooked CIGA's pending petition for reimbursement. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal, and returned the matter to the trial level to resolve the reimbursement issue. This ensures CIGA's statutory right to reimbursement is properly addressed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAEleventh Hour PersonnelSuperior NationalSteelcaseWausau InsurancePetition for ReimbursementOrder Dismissing CaseNotice of Intent to DismissWCAB Rule 10562
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Long Island Rail Road

The case involves 24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. suing Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) after LIRR canceled its lowest bid for a diesel fuel supply contract and re-bid the contract. 24 Hour sought summary judgment and a permanent injunction, arguing LIRR violated federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 18.36) by not awarding to the lowest bidder. Defendants cross-moved, claiming lack of federal jurisdiction. The court ruled that 24 Hour did not possess a private right of action under the cited federal regulation. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Summary JudgmentFederal Question JurisdictionPrivate Right of ActionContract BiddingProcurement RegulationsFederal Transit Administration (FTA)State Law ClaimsSupplemental JurisdictionGovernment ContractsBid Protest
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DePaoli v. Great a & P Tea Co.

Claimant, a manager at an A & P supermarket, experienced severe anxiety symptoms on October 30, 1994, diagnosed as panic disorder, attributed to work-related stress. This stress arose from personnel changes, including the replacement of experienced co-managers with inexperienced staff and the reassignment of the night crew to day shifts, forcing the claimant to work excessive hours. A & P opposed workers' compensation benefits, arguing the mental injury was a direct consequence of lawful personnel decisions. The Workers’ Compensation Board Panel and Appellate Division ruled that the injury was not a direct consequence of decisions aimed at the claimant, thus not precluded by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7). The Court affirmed, holding that section 2 (7) applies only when the personnel decision directly targets the claimant.

Workers' CompensationMental InjuryWork-Related StressPersonnel DecisionsDirect ConsequencePanic DisorderEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCausation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2008

Mayo v. Personnel Review Board of the Health & Hospitals Corp.

The case involves a petitioner, an HHC supervisor, whose employment was terminated after an altercation. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially recommended dismissal of charges related to assault and unbecoming conduct. However, the Personnel Review Board (PRB) upheld the termination based on an uncharged ground: the petitioner's failure to immediately report the incident. The Supreme Court annulled the PRB's decision, citing a due process violation due to reliance on uncharged misconduct, deemed the termination penalty disproportionate, and directed reinstatement. This appellate court affirmed the finding of a due process violation but modified the Supreme Court's order, remanding the matter to the PRB for further proceedings consistent with the lack of sufficient notice. The court also clarified that the Supreme Court prematurely addressed the application of HHC personnel rule 7.5.6, stating that the PRB should interpret this rule first.

Due Process ViolationUncharged MisconductAdministrative HearingEmployment TerminationReinstatementRemandSufficiency of NoticeAssault ChargesFailure to ReportPersonnel Rules
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2021

Matter of Gaylord v. Buffalo Transp., Inc.

Claimant Kevin Gaylord, a bus driver for Buffalo Transportation, Inc., sustained multiple injuries after being struck by a car. Buffalo Transportation had a personnel leasing agreement with Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. (SPLI), a professional employer organization, which procured a workers' compensation policy from State National Insurance Company, Inc. State National controverted Gaylord's claim, arguing he was not a covered worksite employee. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that SPLI was statutorily obligated to provide coverage and State National was the proper carrier. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, concluding that SPLI was a co-employer and the State National policy covered Gaylord, as it did not clearly exclude him.

Workers' CompensationProfessional Employer OrganizationPEOCo-employmentInsurance Coverage DisputeStatutory ObligationAppellate ReviewCarrier LiabilityLease AgreementBus Driver Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Claim of DePaoli v. Great A & P Tea Co.

Claimant, a grocery store manager, developed a psychiatric disorder due to working prolonged hours and undertaking additional responsibilities necessitated by personnel cutbacks and scheduling changes. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that this condition constituted an accidental injury within the scope of employment, rejecting the employer's contention that it did not meet the definition of 'injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7). The Board concluded that the injury was caused by ongoing job-related stress, not a personnel decision involving disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination. The court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding substantial evidence in the undisputed testimony and medical evidence to support the finding of an accidental injury.

psychiatric disorderjob-related stressaccidental injuryworkers' compensationpersonnel cutbacksscope of employmentmental healthemotional injurylabor lawemployer liability
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,047 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