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
Jul 22, 1999

In re the Claim of Petrocelli

The claimant was dismissed from her bookkeeper position after threatening a co-worker, a behavior she had been reprimanded for earlier. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that her employment was terminated due to misconduct, disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion. It noted that continuous threatening or harassing behavior despite employer warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct. The court also clarified that the claimant's differing account of events merely created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve, which it was entitled to do.

Unemployment benefitsMisconductWorkplace threatsHarassmentEmployee dischargeCredibility issueAdministrative appealAppellate DivisionUnemployment Insurance LawEmployer warnings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kagha v. Carter

Petitioner, a hospital courier, was discharged by respondent Westchester County Medical Center following sustained charges of misconduct, including 72 specifications of lateness, unauthorized absences, and failure to follow reporting procedures. Petitioner challenged the termination, asserting a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120 due to a reopened workers' compensation case and arguing a doctor's note justified his absences. The court rejected the Workers' Compensation claim, noting the Workers' Compensation Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and dismissed the doctor's note argument, emphasizing the employer's established call-in policy and petitioner's history of time and leave abuses. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, finding the penalty of discharge proportionate to the pattern of misconduct.

MisconductTermination of EmploymentCPLR Article 78Civil Service Law § 75Workers' Compensation Law § 120Time and Leave AbusesUnauthorized AbsenceCall-in PolicyJudicial ReviewPenalty Proportionality
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Marten

Claimant, employed in a supervisory role at a nursing home, was terminated following an incident where she allegedly failed to assess an elderly resident's pain, told co-workers not to administer medication or call a doctor, and believed the resident was faking pain, shortly before the resident's death from acute heart failure. She was initially granted unemployment insurance benefits, but the employer objected. An Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board concluded that her actions constituted disqualifying misconduct, being detrimental to the employer's interest. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant's conduct went beyond mere negligence.

unemployment insurancemisconductnursing homesupervisory positionterminationemployee conductemployer interestadministrative lawappealcredibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Meyerovich

The claimant, a maintenance technician, was discharged for misconduct after his manager observed him loafing on the job and he subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury, which the employer alleged was false. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to misconduct, a decision it adhered to upon reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the manager's testimony that she did not observe the claimant using a shovel during her observation, thus supporting the finding of a false workers' compensation claim and misconduct. The court also noted that conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve and that prior Workers' Compensation Board decisions were not final regarding the accidental injury issue, thus lacking collateral estoppel effect.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsFalse Workers' Compensation ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueDischarge from EmploymentLoafingProbationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. Stolzenberg

Petitioner, an employee at Westchester County Medical Center, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Hospitals of Westchester County that terminated her employment for misconduct. The misconduct involved two incidents where she allegedly attempted to pull down male co-workers' trousers, violating sexual harassment policy and the Ethics Code. While the court upheld findings related to the sexual harassment policy, it found no basis for violating the Ethics Code, as the code lacked relevant provisions. Consequently, two specifications were dismissed, and the case was remitted for a reassessment of the penalty.

Employment TerminationMisconductSexual Harassment PolicyEthics CodeCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate CourtWestchester CountyCredibility Assessment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Afflito v. Estee Frocks, Inc.

The petitioner, a union member, sought to overturn an arbitrator's award concerning grievances against his employer, an application opposed by both the employer and the union. The petitioner argued his eligibility to bring the action as a third-party beneficiary of the contract. However, the court ruled it could not review the merits of the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator misconduct. Citing Matter of Soto (Goldman) and Parker v. Borock, the court determined that the petitioner, not being a direct party to the arbitration agreement, lacked the standing to challenge the award against the employer under the Civil Practice Act. The court clarified that remedies under the Civil Practice Act are limited to parties to the arbitration. It further suggested that the petitioner's sole recourse for a meritorious grievance would be against the union for failing to initiate arbitration or for negligence in prosecuting it. Consequently, the court denied the application and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had no direct remedy against the employer.

Arbitrator's AwardThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee GrievanceUnion RepresentationJudicial Review of ArbitrationCivil Practice ActStanding to SueEmployer LiabilityUnion Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Tandon

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which had disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to employment termination caused by misconduct. The record supported the finding that the claimant's discharge stemmed from misconduct, specifically his unauthorized reading of a memorandum regarding his job performance, despite prior warnings about using co-workers' property without permission. The court found that these actions were not inadvertent and were detrimental to the employer's interest. Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed without costs.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductJob PerformanceUnauthorized Use of PropertyEmployment TerminationAppeal BoardBenefits DisqualificationAppellate DecisionWorkplace RulesEmployee Conduct
References
1
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. ADJ11079458
Regular
Feb 19, 2020

MARCELINO GOROSTIETA (Deceased); REYNA RAMIREZ vs. RANCH OF THE GOLDEN HAWK; EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that the applicant failed to prove serious and willful misconduct by the employer, Ranch of the Golden Hawk. The applicant alleged the employer's gross negligence in hiring an unlicensed contractor who subsequently hired the deceased. However, the Board determined the employer's manager, while careless in relying on a subordinate's recommendation, did not exhibit the required "quasi-criminal" disregard for safety. The evidence did not establish the employer knowingly placed the employee in a situation of obvious and extreme danger, distinguishing it from prior cases.

Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code section 4553Cal/OSHAwillful blindnessconscious disregardlicensed contractorworker safetyquasi-criminalemployer liabilitynegligence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,571 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