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
Jan 29, 2010

Fowler v. SCORES HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff Ruth Fowler, an exotic dancer, sued Scores Holding Company, Inc., alleging sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and unlawful wage deductions at Scores West, invoking the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York Labor Law. Scores Holding moved to dismiss, arguing Fowler was an independent contractor and not its employee. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Fowler sufficiently alleged an employee relationship and that Scores Holding could be considered her employer under the single and joint employer doctrines. The court concluded that Fowler's claims for discrimination, hostile work environment, and unlawful wage deductions were facially plausible under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWage DeductionsIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationJoint EmployerMotion to DismissFederal Civil ProcedureHuman Rights LawLabor Law
References
44
Case No. 73 Civ. 1540
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1980

Kirkland v. NY STATE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

This case, on remand from the Second Circuit, addresses the constitutionality of a new examination (No. 36-435) for correctional sergeants and a proposed 250-point score adjustment for minority applicants. Plaintiffs and defendants sought approval of the exam and summary judgment against intervenors who opposed the score adjustment and the job performance evaluation component. The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, granted both requests, finding the revised examination procedure compliant with EEOC Guidelines and federal anti-discrimination laws, and the job performance rating sufficiently objective under state law, concluding that the score adjustment was not an impermissible quota but rather served to balance the examination's validated procedure.

Employment DiscriminationCorrectional ServicesCivil Service ExamsAffirmative ActionSummary JudgmentEEOC GuidelinesTest ValidityMinority PreferenceJudicial ReviewFederal Court
References
6
Case No. ADJ7279904
Regular
Jan 26, 2017

JORGE URIBE vs. DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the $69\%$ permanent disability finding for psychiatric injury lacked substantial evidence because the treating physician's GAF score correction was unexplained. The Board found the physician adequately explained the correction by detailing how the proper application of GAF criteria resulted in a revised score. Furthermore, the defendant failed to pursue discovery or object to the revised report, which was admitted into evidence. Therefore, the WCJ's finding on psychiatric permanent disability was upheld.

GAF scorepermanent disabilitypsychiatric injurylumbar spinecervical spinesubstantial evidencePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJprimary treating physician
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkland v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

This case involves a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming an order that enjoined the promotion of correctional sergeants based on an unconstitutionally discriminatory examination. The current proceeding addresses the approval of a new selection examination (No. 36-435) for correctional sergeants and a motion for summary judgment against the Fitzpatrick intervenors. Intervenors objected to a proposed 250-point score adjustment for minority applicants and the perceived subjectivity of the job performance evaluation component. The court granted both the application and the motion, finding that the proposed examination, including the score adjustment, satisfied the requirements set forth by the Second Circuit and the EEOC Guidelines, and met state law objectivity standards.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionCorrectional SergeantsCivil Service ExaminationEqual Employment Opportunity Commission GuidelinesTest ValiditySummary JudgmentRemandJudicial ReviewRacial Bias
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banks v. City of Albany

Sebastian Banks, a black male, alleged racial discrimination in hiring by the Albany Fire Department and City of Albany, violating Title VII, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and New York State Corrections Law Article 23-A. Banks, who scored 85 on a firefighter exam, was not hired while two white candidates with the same score were chosen based on subjective criteria and familial ties to Fire Chief James Larson. The court found Banks established a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination, as the defendants failed to demonstrate business necessity for their subjective hiring practices. Consequently, the court denied both the defendants' motion for summary judgment and Banks' cross-motion for summary judgment, indicating that material facts remain in dispute and the case will proceed to trial.

DiscriminationRaceHiringFirefighterTitle VIIDisparate ImpactSummary JudgmentNew York Civil Service LawConstitutional LawEmployment Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharif v. New York State Education Department

Plaintiffs, consisting of ten high school students and two organizations, filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the State Education Department (SED) and Commissioner Thomas Sobol. They alleged that New York's exclusive use of SAT scores for Empire and Regents scholarships discriminates against female students, violating the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause and Title IX. The Court had previously granted a preliminary injunction preventing the use of SAT scores alone for 1989 scholarships. Plaintiffs then moved for class certification, proposing a class of all female high school seniors in New York state applying for these scholarships. The Court, finding that the proposed class met all requirements under Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) and Rule 23(b)(2), granted the motion for class certification. The Court rejected the defendants' argument of internal class conflict, stating it was illusory.

Class ActionGender DiscriminationSAT ScoresMerit ScholarshipsEqual ProtectionTitle IXPreliminary InjunctionEducation LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Judicial Review
References
24
Case No. ADJ2414221 (LAO 0845829) ADJ784443 (LAO 0848988) ADJ4632517 (VNO 0474654)
Regular
Jan 14, 2011

JOSEFA GUTIERREZ vs. SCORE SOCCER AMERICAN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SANTA ANA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to a lien claimant who argued their lien was improperly dismissed due to lack of notice. The Board found no substantial evidence of proper service of hearing notices on the lien claimant. Consequently, the dismissal order was rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings to allow the lien claimant an opportunity to present its case on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLack of noticeProof of serviceDeclaration of ReadinessStatus conferenceEAMS CommunicationsMinutes of hearing
References
0
Case No. ADJ7295285
Regular
Dec 05, 2012

CARL SIRL vs. VSJ, INC., ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRSTCOMP INSURANCE AGENCY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award finding applicant suffered a 23% permanent disability, including 12% for sleep disturbance. The PQME's reliance on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale for the sleep impairment rating was deemed insufficient without further explanation, particularly regarding the absence of formal sleep studies. The WCAB remanded the case to the trial level for further development of the medical record concerning the sleep disorder and its impairment rating. Defendants were directed to continue paying uncontested permanent disability indemnity for the applicant's back injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilitySleep DisturbanceEpworth Sleepiness ScalePQMEAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentActivities of Daily LivingDue ProcessMedical Record Development
References
4
Case No. ADJ8530656, ADJ8553993
Regular
May 03, 2019

Feliciano Hernandez vs. Fresh Express, Inc., Federal Insurance Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, amending the applicant's permanent disability rating. The Board disagreed with the initial finding of 67% permanent disability, determining that the psychiatric impairment rating should be increased based on the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion. This adjustment, utilizing an analogical rating method and considering the applicant's GAF score of 50, increased the total permanent disability to 73% and will include a life pension. The Board upheld the rejection of the vocational expert's total disability finding due to improper consideration of the applicant's age.

Agreed Medical ExaminerAlmaraz/GuzmanGAF scorepermanent disability ratingvocational expertsubstantial medical evidencerebuttal of scheduled ratingindustrial injuryspecific injurycumulative trauma injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 1970

Local 1180 v. Hoberman

The case concerns an appeal by candidates (appellants) challenging the Civil Service Commission of the City of New York's grading methodology for a promotional examination. The appellants protested the unannounced use of a conversion formula that effectively raised the passing score from 70% to 78% for the 'Administrative Associate' position. The court found that the commission failed to provide sufficient advance notice and details regarding the adjustment of the passing grade, violating established civil service rules. Consequently, the judgment that initially dismissed the petition was reversed. The court granted the petitioners' requested relief, thereby reinstating their petition.

Promotional ExaminationCivil Service LawGrading FormulaBonus Penalty ScoringPassing MarkExamination ProceduresAdvance NoticeRule ViolationAdministrative LawNew York Civil Service
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 19 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