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

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. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

Claimant filed a disability benefits claim for a non-work-related back condition. After an extended absence of 40 days, her employment was terminated by the employer, who cited her doctor's inability to provide a definitive return-to-work date. Claimant subsequently filed a discrimination complaint, alleging her discharge violated Workers' Compensation Law sections 120 and 241, which prohibit employer retaliation for claiming benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the employer violated the applicable law by terminating her employment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer's stated reason for termination was insufficient to distinguish it from a prohibited discriminatory discharge, and that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

DiscriminationRetaliationDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawTermination of EmploymentBack ConditionAbsence from WorkSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Syracuse v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case involves the City of Syracuse's unilateral implementation of procedures to terminate General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits for firefighters. Two firefighters were injured and receiving benefits; one reported late and left early for light duty, the other refused to report. The City held hearings and terminated their benefits, prompting the Syracuse Fire Fighters Association (Union) to file an improper practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging a violation of the Taylor Law. The Administrative Law Judge initially dismissed the charge, but PERB reversed this decision, finding that the procedures for terminating such benefits are a subject of mandatory bargaining. The City then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court confirmed PERB's determination, holding that the City's unilateral implementation of benefit termination procedures constituted an improper practice and that a City Charter's notice of claim provision did not apply to improper practice charges filed with PERB.

Taylor LawCivil Service LawGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aImproper Practice ChargeMandatory BargainingCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessLight Duty AssignmentNotice of ClaimCPLR Article 78 Proceeding
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Claim of Rainone v. 36th Street Terminal Corp.

This case is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed August 4, 1993, which found an employer-employee relationship between the decedent and Universal Maritime Service Corporation, in addition to 36th Street Terminal Corporation. The decedent, a security guard for 36th Street, was killed by a forklift operated by a Universal employee. The Board had ruled that 36th Street was the general employer and Universal was the special employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence supporting the employment relationship with Universal, considering factors such as Universal's ownership of 36th Street, 36th Street's exclusive work for Universal, and Universal's provision of work equipment and assignments to 36th Street employees.

employer-employee relationshipspecial employergeneral employerworkers' compensationfatal accidentsecurity guardforklift accidentsubstantial evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employment Commission v. Southside Independent School District

This appeal concerns a summary judgment that reversed the Texas Employment Commission's decision to grant unemployment benefits to Albert A. Sendejo, a substitute teacher for the Southside Independent School District. The Commission contested this reversal, arguing the trial court erred because its initial decision was supported by substantial evidence and Sendejo was "totally unemployed" under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act. The appellate court disagreed, concluding that Sendejo remained employed by the school district and therefore did not meet the definition of "unemployed" for compensation purposes. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that the employer-employee relationship had not terminated. This decision highlights the legal interpretation of unemployment within the context of substitute teaching and the substantial evidence rule governing appeals of commission decisions.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployment LawTexasSubstantial EvidenceSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtSubstitute TeacherEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory InterpretationTexas Employment Commission
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2004

LoPrete v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case concerns a petitioner's employment termination pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The petitioner, a motor vehicle operator, was injured on duty and granted a one-year leave of absence, which was briefly extended. However, the petitioner exceeded the authorized absence by six additional days, thereby forfeiting the right to reinstatement, consistent with Matter of Allen v Howe. A CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul this termination was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. This denial was subsequently and unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, which also found the Workers’ Compensation Board's determination irrelevant to the reinstatement issue.

Employment TerminationCivil Service LawLeave of AbsenceReinstatement RightsCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation IrrelevanceUnauthorized AbsenceAppellate AffirmanceNew York Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1989

Quinn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found that the claimant was not discriminated against by their employer. The claimant was terminated due to a work-related disability, and subsequently rejected rehire offers from the employer, despite no decrease in salary. When the claimant later sought reemployment, the employer refused. The court found that the claimant failed to prove discrimination or retaliation, and that the employer was under no contractual or legal obligation to rehire the claimant after termination. Therefore, the decision affirming that the employer did not discriminate was upheld.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationRetaliationReinstatementTerminationEmploymentDisabilitySubstantial EvidenceRehireBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employment Commission v. Hays

Hays, a full-time high school student, sought unemployment benefits after his part-time employment with H. E. Butt Grocery Company was terminated. He restricted his availability for work to after-school hours and Saturdays. The Texas Employment Commission deemed him ineligible, a decision initially reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals. This court, however, reversed the appellate court's judgment, ruling that Hays was not 'available for work' under Article 5221b-2 of the Unemployment Compensation Act. The court held that individuals, including students, who impose time restrictions on their work availability for personal reasons and effectively detach themselves from the labor market, are ineligible for benefits.

Unemployment CompensationAvailability for WorkStudent EmploymentPart-time WorkLabor MarketEligibility for BenefitsTexas LawStatutory ConstructionJudicial ReviewPersonal Restrictions
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 17,020 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