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. 517964
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2014

MatterofThomas-FletchervNewYorkCityDepartmentofCorrections

Chantel Thomas-Fletcher, a correction officer, sought workers' compensation benefits after an injury. Her counsel requested a venue change from New York City to White Plains, which was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge. A $500 penalty was assessed against counsel under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the denial and increased the penalty to $750, finding the appeal was based on previously rejected arguments. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the challenge to the venue denial was not preserved for review. The court further found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the venue change request lacked a reasonable basis and that the $750 penalty assessment was not an abuse of discretion.

Venue ChangeMonetary PenaltyWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewCounsel FeesReasonable GroundCorrection OfficerJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionProcedural Issue
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fletcher v. Rodriguez

This case addresses motions by both the defendant to dismiss the complaint and by the plaintiff to restore the action to the trial calendar and for summary judgment dismissing the defendant's defense of estoppel. The dispute stems from a motor vehicle accident on January 13, 2011, where the plaintiff, after a denial of claim from the defendant's insurer (Allstate), received a conditional settlement of $25,000 from her own insurer (USAA) under an uninsured motorist clause. The settlement required reimbursement to USAA if the plaintiff successfully recovered from the person responsible for the accident. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had irrevocably waived her right to sue by accepting this settlement, citing the doctrines of election of remedies and judicial estoppel. The court ultimately found these doctrines inapplicable, noting the conditional nature of the settlement which contemplated further action against the tortfeasor, and that the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff took an inconsistent position in a prior proceeding. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of judicial estoppel was granted, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.

Motor Vehicle AccidentUninsured MotoristConditional SettlementElection of Remedies DoctrineJudicial Estoppel DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissCPLR 3211CPLR 3212Insurance Policy Interpretation
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fletcher v. Wegmans

Claimant sustained a work-related knee injury in November 2002. The Workers' Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage at $398.49 by applying Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3) and (4), as the claimant did not work a standard five or six-day week. The employer appealed, arguing improper statutory application. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board correctly utilized Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3) to determine annual average earnings and subsequently Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (4) to establish the average weekly wage.

Work-related injuryAverage weekly wage calculationWorkers' Compensation Law § 14Statutory interpretationKnee injuryBoard decision affirmedWage calculation methodsAppellate reviewEmployer appealWorkers' Compensation benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1993

Fletcher v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.

This consolidated appeal addresses the enforceability of anticipatory agreements to arbitrate statutory discrimination claims, specifically those alleging racial and gender discrimination under the State Human Rights Law. The Court re-examines its 1979 decision in Matter of Wertheim & Co. v Halpert, concluding that it is superseded by recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent, particularly Gilmer v Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., in cases governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Court establishes that the arbitrability of such claims depends on congressional intent to preclude a waiver of a judicial forum for disputes based on a particular statutory right. Finding no such intent in the legislative history of Title VII or its amendments, the Court affirms the Appellate Division's orders, compelling arbitration for both plaintiffs. The opinion also rejects the argument that the U-4 Form, a standard securities industry registration application, constitutes a "contract of employment" thereby falling under an FAA exclusion.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActEmployment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationState Human Rights LawU-4 FormSecurities IndustryJudicial ForumWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 1985

Claim of Fletcher v. Ray Weil Chevrolet Corp.

Claimant, an auto mechanic, developed occupational dermatitis, a severe skin irritation from grease and oil, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1976. Despite initially receiving benefits, his case remained open, and he retired in 1982 due to his condition. The employer's workers' compensation carrier contended the claim was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 123. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that § 123 applies only to closed cases, which this was not, and found a causal link between the retirement and the disability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support its conclusions regarding the statute's applicability and rejecting arguments of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Occupational DermatitisWorkers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityCausally Related RetirementStatute of LimitationsClosed CasesOpen CasesSpecial FundMedical TreatmentAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Thomas-Fletcher v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant, a correction officer for the New York City Department of Corrections, sought workers' compensation benefits. Her counsel requested a change of venue to White Plains, Westchester County, despite the claimant residing and working in New York City. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the request based on Board policy and assessed a $500 penalty against counsel. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the denial and increased the penalty to $750, citing counsel's appeal arguments as previously rejected. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the venue challenge unpreserved for review and substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the venue request lacked a reasonable basis. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the $750 penalty.

Workers' CompensationPenaltyCounsel FeesVenue ChangeAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCorrection OfficerNew York CityWhite Plains
References
5
Case No. ADJ2249081 (RDG 0113954)
Regular
Jun 21, 2010

EVELYN FLETCHER vs. FEATHER RIVER HOSPITAL, ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM WEST

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order awarding psychological counseling and a nurse case manager. The Board found no substantial evidence supported the nurse case manager award, as it was not recommended by a physician and not justified by ACOEM Guidelines. Regarding psychological counseling, the Board noted a Utilization Review denial and directed the matter back to the trial level, allowing the unrepresented applicant an extended period to formally object under Labor Code section 4062. This ensures due process and proper adherence to utilization review procedures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewLabor Code section 4610SandhagenNurse Case ManagerACOEM GuidelinesSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessSection 4062Medical Treatment Dispute
References
9
Case No. ADJ4356391
Regular
Jun 03, 2016

YUNG LIN TSAO vs. FLETCHER JONES MOTOR CARS, ZURICH INSURANCE

This case concerns a lien claimant, Optimal Health Institute, whose lien was dismissed for failing to appear at a trial and object to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT). Optimal sought reconsideration, claiming they *did* file a timely objection with an incorrect case number and a representative attempted to appear at the trial. The Board granted reconsideration, finding the objection was timely and the circumstances surrounding the attempted appearance and compliance with representation rules were unclear. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings due to insufficient findings from the WCJ.

WCABLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to DismissExcusable NeglectInadvertenceIncorrect ADJ NumberLien TrialWCAB Rule 10774.5
References
5
Case No. ADJ6509820, ADJ8911115
Regular
Sep 09, 2013

CHERYL FLETCHER vs. CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY, CHEVRON CORP. WORKERS' COMP.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was filed from an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted. The petitioner was admonished that misrepresenting facts could lead to sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrdersRemovalPre-trial OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeReport and Recommendation
References
10
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03103 [138 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

Bennett v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Plaintiffs, who were general foremen in their 50s and 60s, brought claims against Time Warner Cable Inc., alleging age-based discrimination under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws based on a disparate impact theory. They contended that the defendant's decision to eliminate the general foreman position disproportionately affected them compared to younger workers. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss these claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, reaffirming that disparate impact claims for age discrimination are cognizable under both the State and City Human Rights Laws, and noting the requirement to construe the City Human Rights Law broadly in favor of plaintiffs.

Age DiscriminationDisparate ImpactHuman Rights LawMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentState LawCity LawEmployment Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 11 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