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. 2018 NY Slip Op 00213
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Colamaio-Kohl v. Task Essential Corp.

Claimant Ernest Colamaio-Kohl sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an accidental injury during his employment as a skin care specialist. The Workers' Compensation Board determined an employer-employee relationship existed between Colamaio-Kohl and Task Essential Corp., and awarded benefits. Task Essential Corp. appealed, contesting the employer-employee relationship, arguing Colamaio-Kohl was a special employee of Bloomingdale's, and asserting improper notice of injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's findings. The court concluded that Task Essential Corp. exercised sufficient control over Colamaio-Kohl, he was not a special employee of Bloomingdale's, and late notice was excusable due to Task Essential Corp.'s actual knowledge of the accident.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentLate NoticeSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentSkin Care SpecialistRetail Employment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tuttle v. Housing Opportunities Management & Essential Services, Inc.

The plaintiff, a 30-year-old man diagnosed with retardation, suffered severe burns from an assault by a friend in his apartment. He resided in an intensive supportive apartment provided by Housing Opportunities Management and Essential Services, Inc. (H.O.M.E.S.), a non-profit organization offering housing for individuals with psychiatric or developmental conditions within a state-authorized community living program. While H.O.M.E.S. staff and other therapists had approved his move to this less restrictive setting, concerns arose regarding friends taking advantage of him, leading H.O.M.E.S. to initiate a discharge process for him to move to a more supervised environment, which was not completed before the incident. The court deliberated on whether H.O.M.E.S. owed a duty to protect the plaintiff from a third party's criminal acts. Citing Mental Hygiene Law and various precedents, the court concluded that H.O.M.E.S. had no such special duty, emphasizing that the community care system prioritizes individual liberties and the assault by the friend was not reasonably foreseeable. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Community HousingDevelopmental DisabilitiesPsychiatric ConditionsNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsMental Hygiene LawCommunity Care SystemResidential Programs
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharp v. Abate

Plaintiffs, correction officers for the New York City Department of Correction, sued the Department under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other state laws, alleging discriminatory termination or attempted termination due to physical or emotional conditions. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that contact with prisoners is an essential job function that plaintiffs cannot perform. The court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether inmate supervision is an essential function, noting that many non-contact positions exist and are filled by both medically monitored and able-bodied officers. Consequently, the court denied most of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing the plaintiffs' claims for damages to proceed. However, the motion was granted regarding plaintiff Karen Sessoms, who was deemed not disabled under the ADA and failed to notify the Department of her condition.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment DiscriminationCorrection OfficersEssential Job FunctionsReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentMedical ImpairmentDisability LawCivil Service LawCollateral Estoppel
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. Northwood Rehabilitation & Extended Care Facility

The plaintiff, a physical therapist with a long-standing back condition, sued her prospective employer, Highgate Manor, for disability discrimination after they rescinded her job offer. Highgate deemed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, requiring her to lift 50-100 pounds, an essential function of the physical therapist role. Despite considering accommodations such as assigning an aide or using mechanical lifts, Highgate concluded these were impractical, burdensome, or unsafe for patient care. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Munson, applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test and granted Highgate's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff was not a "qualified individual" as she could not perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and state law claims without prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActEmployment LawReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSummary JudgmentPhysical TherapyBack InjuryHiring PracticesMcDonnell Douglas Test
References
14
Case No. 00-CV-1598
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Jenkins v. NORTHWOOD REHAB. & EXTENDED CARE FACIL.

Plaintiff Pamela Joan Jenkins sued her prospective employer for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to accommodate her back problems which limited her lifting capacity as a physical therapist. The employment offer was rescinded after a health questionnaire revealed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, a job requirement. Highgate considered and rejected various accommodations, deeming them impractical, unsafe, or requiring the elimination of essential job functions. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting test and found that Jenkins could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA, unable to perform the essential functions of the job even with accommodation. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice.

ADA discriminationDisability employmentReasonable accommodationEssential job functionsSummary judgmentPhysical therapistBack injuryMcDonnell Douglas testQualified individualEEOC claim
References
24
Case No. 00-CV-6118, 00-CV-6101
Regular Panel Decision

Bonner v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Leslie Maynard and Melvin Bonner, both first-class gas fitters for New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG), suffered work-related injuries that resulted in permanent partial disabilities. After a period of light-duty assignments, NYSEG placed them on disability leave, citing the unavailability of such work and their inability to perform the essential functions of a first-class gas fitter. Consequently, Maynard and Bonner filed complaints alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court granted NYSEG's motions for summary judgment, concluding that neither plaintiff was capable of performing the essential functions of their desired job, even with reasonable accommodation. The court further clarified that the ADA does not require employers to create new positions, like a light-duty first-class gas fitter role, to accommodate disabled employees. Therefore, both complaints were dismissed.

Americans with Disabilities ActADASummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationDisability RightsEssential Job FunctionsReasonable AccommodationLight-Duty WorkPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkplace Injury
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2016

Reyes v. Phoenix Beverages, Inc.

Plaintiff Eddy Reyes sued his former employer, Phoenix Beverages, Inc., alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Reyes claimed he was denied reinstatement to his sales representative position after taking FMLA leave due to a non-work-related injury. The court addressed Defendant's arguments regarding judicial estoppel and the Plaintiff's failure to provide a full-duty medical certification. The Court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that Defendant failed to provide timely notice of fitness-for-duty requirements and that certain physical activities were not essential job functions. However, genuine factual disputes remain regarding whether Reyes was truly able to perform the essential functions of his job at the end of his FMLA leave, necessitating a trial.

FMLANYCHRLDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentJudicial EstoppelFitness-for-Duty CertificationEssential Job FunctionsReasonable AccommodationEmployee RightsEmployer Obligations
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2001

Mulhern v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The case involves Kevin Mulhern, a former employee of Eastman Kodak Company, who sued Kodak for discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and New York State Human Rights Law (NYHRL) due to his Nail-Patella Syndrome. Mulhern alleged that Kodak failed to reasonably accommodate his disability by not allowing him to work exclusively in the less physically demanding PRS area, despite his ability to perform those tasks. Kodak argued that rotation to more strenuous 3R tasks was an essential job function and that Mulhern's disability application statements contradicted his ability to work. The court denied Kodak's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding the essential functions of Mulhern's job, the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, and the interpretation of his disability application statements. The court also found triable issues of fact regarding the FMLA claim.

ADAFMLANYHRLDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSummary JudgmentWork RestrictionsMedical LeaveJudicial Estoppel
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

23 East 10 L.L.C. v. Albert Apartment Corp.

This case addresses a landlord-tenant dispute concerning the necessity of a sidewalk hatch providing basement access for a restaurant. The landlord argued the hatch was a mere convenience and not essential, and that the plaintiffs were bound by their failure to include hatch-use language in a new proprietary lease. However, the court found these arguments unavailing, noting that uncontroverted testimony demonstrated the daily critical use of the hatch for deliveries and garbage, making it a necessary appurtenance due to the impracticality of internal alternatives. The decision affirmed that appurtenant rights transfer to tenants unless specifically reserved, and the continuous use of the hatch by the restaurant since the initial sublease implied its essentiality to the premises' function.

Landlord-Tenant DisputeCommercial LeaseAppurtenanceSidewalk AccessEasement by ImplicationSubtenant RightsProprietary LeaseReal Estate LawRestaurant OperationsNecessary Use
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 606 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