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. ADJ7495216 ADJ7495729 ADJ7497171
Regular
Sep 11, 2013

FRANK ALLEN vs. ATLAS TRANSFER AND STORAGE COMPANY, REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

Defendants sought reconsideration of an award finding Frank Allen an employee entitled to temporary disability and medical treatment. They argued Allen was an independent contractor, and that temporary disability should be limited to 104 weeks due to insufficient evidence of chronic lung disease. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amended the temporary disability finding, and affirmed the award otherwise, returning the case to the trial level.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDATLAS TRANSFER AND STORAGE COMPANYREDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCESTAR INSURANCE COMPANYBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIESMEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUPFRANK ALLENPetition for ReconsiderationFirst Amended Joint Findings of FactAward & Orders
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Frank Y.

The case involves an appeal by Frank Z. against a Family Court order from Chemung County, dated January 27, 2003, which found his children neglected. The initial neglect proceedings in 2001 were based on the mother's physical abuse and Frank Z.'s failure to protect his children. After conditions including an order of protection against the mother, Frank Z. violated these terms by permitting the mother to have contact with the children and by inflicting corporal punishment. Following further hearings, the Family Court sustained the neglect petition and placed the children in petitioner's custody for one year. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the neglect finding, including Frank Z.'s willful violation of the protection order and corroborated statements from the children regarding corporal punishment.

Child NeglectFamily CourtOrder of ProtectionCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseAppellate ReviewCorroboration of Child StatementsParental ResponsibilityChild Welfare
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. Lawrence Union Free School District

Michael D. Frank, a former junior high school mathematics teacher, sued the Lawrence Union Free School District and related entities for discrimination and retaliation after being denied tenure and subsequently fired. Frank alleged discrimination based on perceived disability (morbid obesity) under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYSHRL, and also claimed retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The court denied the defendants' summary judgment motion on Frank's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims concerning being "regarded as" disabled, and on his NYSHRL claims for both disability discrimination and "regarded as" disabled. Additionally, retaliation claims related to a harsh performance review survived. However, Frank's claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation were dismissed as he never requested any.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)Summary Judgment MotionPerceived DisabilityObesity DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTenure Denial
References
40
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08369
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2014

Matter of Allen v. City of New York

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to annul the termination of petitioner Lionel Allen's employment by the City of New York. The court found that the City violated Allen's due process rights by initially terminating him under Civil Service Law § 73 for non-occupational injuries, then rescinding that and re-terminating him retroactively under Civil Service Law § 71 for occupational injuries, without offering a new opportunity to be heard. The decision highlighted the procedural differences between the two sections of the Civil Service Law, noting that Section 71 offers greater protections. The court also rejected the respondents' suggestion to order a hearing to determine Allen's fitness, stating it would nullify the due process holding.

Due ProcessEmployment TerminationCivil Service LawOccupational InjuryNon-Occupational InjuryReinstatementArticle 78 PetitionRetroactive TerminationProcedural ProtectionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peninsula National Bank v. Allen Carpet Shops, Inc. (In Re Allen Carpet Shops, Inc.)

The creditors' committee moved for reargument and reconsideration of a previous court decision that granted summary judgment in favor of Peninsula National Bank (PNB) against Allen Carpet Shops, Inc., the debtor in a Chapter 11 reorganization. PNB sought administrative priority for various payroll account overdrafts. The court reaffirmed the summary judgment for a $19,545.16 portion of PNB's claim and clarified that a $12,684.17 pre-petition overdraft constituted a general unsecured claim. However, the court identified several unanswered material facts concerning a $37,892.92 portion of PNB's claim, which involved checks drawn pre-petition but honored post-petition. Consequently, the court warranted a rehearing specifically on this disputed portion of the claim, effectively granting the committee's motion for reargument in part.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingSummary JudgmentReargument MotionAdministrative Expense PriorityWage PriorityDebtor-in-PossessionOverdraftsCreditors' Committee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2002

Frank v. Plaza Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Frank filed suit against Plaza Construction Corporation, Fisher Brothers, and Steven Fisher alleging sexual harassment, gender-based disparate treatment, disability discrimination under the ADA for dyslexia, and retaliatory discharge. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Title VII sexual harassment claims (hostile work environment and quid pro quo) and the disparate treatment claim. However, the ADA claim was dismissed as Frank failed to provide sufficient evidence of a substantially limiting impairment. The retaliatory discharge claim was partially dismissed, surviving only in relation to alleged complaints about sexual harassment by Peter Hulbert.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeADA ClaimDyslexiaSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law
References
30
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05267 [220 AD3d 882]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2023

Omwathath v. Frank E. Basil, Inc.

Lakhram Omwathath filed an action seeking damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering after the death of the decedent, who was injured while working for Frank E. Basil, Inc. The decedent and subsequently the plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, which the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, concluding that the claims against Frank E. Basil, Inc. were barred and no allegations were made against Data Dimensions.

wrongful deathconscious pain and sufferingworkers' compensationmotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a)documentary evidenceemployer immunityappellate affirmanceprocedural lawstatutory bar
References
4
Case No. 222 AD3d 1134
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Allen v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Claimant Odaliris Allen appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which ruled that Workers' Compensation Law § 123 precluded an award of additional indemnity benefits. Allen sustained a work-related injury in 2000, and liability later transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. Despite subsequent amendments to her claim to include consequential ankle injuries and authorization for a surgical procedure, the Board affirmed that more than 18 years had passed since the injury and eight years since the last compensation payment, thus barring further awards. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the case was truly closed after a 2019 Workers' Compensation Law Judge decision and subsequent surgical authorization, making Workers' Compensation Law § 123 applicable.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial FundReopened CasesIndemnity BenefitsSchedule Loss of UseStatute of LimitationsAppellate DivisionCase ClosureInjury ClaimsAnkle Injury
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1991

Babcock v. Frank

Babcock, a thirty-seven-year-old woman, sued Postmaster General Anthony Frank under Title VII, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. She claimed her immediate supervisor, Anthony Musso, sexually harassed her after their consensual relationship ended, and that the USPS retaliated against her for filing complaints by denying a promotion and imposing sick leave restrictions. Babcock also cited a hostile work environment due to isolated incidents and eventually resigned, asserting constructive discharge. The court found that Babcock was a victim of sexual harassment but concluded the USPS responded appropriately and promptly to all complaints. It determined there was no discriminatory animus in promotion decisions, the alleged hostile environment incidents were insufficient, and the working conditions did not constitute constructive discharge, leading to the dismissal of her complaint.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIIDiscriminationEmployee DisciplineWorkplace ConductUS Postal ServiceSupervisor Misconduct
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1995

Allen v. Blum

This case involves an appeal in two related actions seeking damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff, Leon Allen, an employee of Coca Cola Bottling Company, was injured by a moving service van after installing a replacement transmission. Defendants Brian Pechaska, as President of New York Coca Cola Distributors Association, and New York Coca Cola Distributors Association, appealed a Supreme Court order that denied their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint based on their vicarious liability under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the appellants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against them. The court reasoned that since Coca Cola Bottling and supervisor Michael Parise were immune from suit under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), the appellants could not be held vicariously liable as owners of the service van.

Personal InjuryVicarious LiabilityVehicle and Traffic LawWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyOwner LiabilityAutomobile AccidentWorkplace Injury
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 349 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