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

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Steen v. Governor's Office of Employee Relations

Petitioners, employed as Recreation Workers and Therapists at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center, were assigned new duties as "Treatment Plan Coordinators" under the "Buffalo Model" program. These new responsibilities included transcribing patient information, conducting patient interviews, entering data into worksheets, and performing 90-day progress reviews. Believing these tasks constituted out-of-title work typically performed by higher-grade Treatment Team Leaders, petitioners filed administrative grievances, which were consistently denied by the Governor's Office of Employee Relations. Subsequently, petitioners commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, but the Supreme Court dismissed their application, upholding the administrative determination. On appeal, the higher court found no rational basis for the administrative conclusion that the duties were a logical extension of petitioners' original roles, determining that the work was indeed out-of-title. Consequently, the judgment of the Supreme Court was reversed, the administrative determination annulled, and the petition granted.

Out-of-title workGrievancePosition classificationAdministrative determinationJudicial reviewAlbany CountyState Office of Mental HealthPilgrim Psychiatric CenterTreatment Plan CoordinatorsRecreation Worker
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied a claimant's motion to preclude a workers’ compensation carrier’s consultant report, which was based solely on a review of medical records, not an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant argued non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a provision requiring notice if an IME is performed. The Board concluded the statute does not apply to records-review-only reports. An appellate court affirmed, holding that the plain language of § 137 (1) (b) explicitly refers to practitioners who have performed or will perform an IME, thereby excluding those who solely review records. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to plain language, leaving policy arguments to the Legislature.

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05084
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2025

Matter of Gunderson v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.

The petitioner, an employee of the New York City Department of Sanitation, sought accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits after falling on a loose vinyl floor tile and injuring his left shoulder. The Medical Board and the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS) denied his application, concluding the fall was not an 'accident' because he was aware of the floor's disrepair. The Supreme Court upheld this denial. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, finding insufficient record support that the petitioner was aware of the particular hazard—that the vinyl floor tiles might shift under his weight. The court concluded that there was no rational, nonspeculative basis for the determination that the event was not an accident, thereby deeming the Board of Trustees' decision arbitrary and capricious. The petition was granted, the determination annulled, and the matter remitted to the Board of Trustees for further proceedings.

Accidental Disability RetirementPublic Employee BenefitsSlip and FallPremises LiabilityAdministrative Law ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingNYCERSMedical BoardAppellate ReviewHazard Awareness
References
5
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Houghton

This case concerns a petition to annul a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights, which had found that the petitioner, an employer, discriminated against an employee (complainant-respondent) based on age. The Supreme Court, New York County, transferred the petition, which was subsequently granted. The court annulled the Division's determination, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of age discrimination. The record indicated that the complainant was terminated due to a failure to meet sales quotas and performance expectations, rather than age-related reasons. Evidence presented highlighted that a younger predecessor was also terminated for poor performance, the complainant's performance was significantly worse than her peers, she was hired at age 53, and the workplace had a diverse age demographic with older, high-performing employees.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSales PerformanceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawHuman Rights LawExecutive LawEvidentiary StandardsBurden of ProofAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Mosaic & Terrazzo Welfare, Pension, Annuity & Vacation Funds v. High Performance Floors, Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various employee benefit funds, brought this action under ERISA and LMRA to collect employer contributions from defendants HPF, Inc. and High Performance Floors, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that HPF was an alter ego of, or single employer with, High Performance, aiming to evade obligations under a collective bargaining agreement. Following a non-jury trial, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold concluded that High Performance and HPF were indeed alter egos and constituted a single employer. This determination was based on compelling evidence of shared management, employees, operations, equipment, and a common business purpose, coupled with an intent to circumvent union obligations. Consequently, the court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for the unpaid contributions.

Alter Ego DoctrineSingle Employer DoctrineERISA EnforcementLMRA LitigationUnpaid Employer ContributionsCollective Bargaining Agreement BreachEmployee Benefit Fund ProtectionCorporate DisregardLabor Relations LawJoint and Several Liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harper v. Government Employees Insurance

This is a collective action where Plaintiff Candace Harper seeks overtime compensation from her former employer, GEICO, under the FLSA and New York State law, claiming she and other Telephone Claims Representatives (TCRs) were improperly denied overtime. GEICO argued TCRs were exempt administrative employees and moved for summary judgment, while Harper sought partial summary judgment against GEICO's exemption claim. The court denied Harper's motion for partial summary judgment and granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment, finding that TCRs perform administrative duties directly related to GEICO's business operations and exercise sufficient discretion and independent judgment to qualify for the administrative exemption. Consequently, the court did not address GEICO's motion to decertify the collective action.

FLSAOvertime CompensationAdministrative ExemptionSummary JudgmentCollective ActionInsurance IndustryClaims AdjustersDiscretion and Independent JudgmentWage and HourTelephone Claims Representatives
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 14,044 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