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. ADJ 3758765 (LBO 0335564) ADJ 977794 (LBO 0350733)
Regular
Jun 24, 2009

ROBERT BOUQUET, vs. FARBOTECH COLOR INCORPORATED, et al., INK SYSTEMS, INC., et al.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration for CIGA (ADJ 3758765) and National Fire Insurance (ADJ 977794) due to errors in the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decisions. In ADJ 3758765, the WCJ's decision improperly included Legion Insurance and omitted necessary caption corrections, necessitating a new decision. In ADJ 977794, the WCJ failed to rule on National's credit claim, erroneously calculated applicant's earnings, and required caption adjustments. Both cases are returned to the trial level for further proceedings and revised decisions by the WCJ.

CIGAFremont IndemnityNational Fire Insurance CompanyFarbotech ColorInk Systemspetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJpermanent disabilitytemporary total disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ4684541 (ANA 0389950)
Regular
Jun 13, 2016

PANFILO SALDANA vs. COLOR SPOT NURSERIES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, AIG, ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Color Spot Nurseries and its insurers, against applicant Panfilo Saldana. The WCAB has granted reconsideration based on an initial review, finding it necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is intended to ensure a complete understanding of the record and enable a just decision. All future correspondence and filings related to the petition must be submitted directly to the WCAB Commissioners.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonzo v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

Plaintiff Luis R. Alonzo filed an employment discrimination action against The Chase Manhattan Bank and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on race, color, and national origin, and retaliation. Alonzo, a Hispanic employee, claimed he was subjected to racial slurs and subsequently terminated. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies for race and color claims and lack of individual liability under Title VII. The court denied the motion regarding race discrimination, finding that "Hispanic" could encompass race for EEOC investigation purposes, but granted the dismissal of color discrimination claims and claims against the individual defendants, citing no personal liability under Title VII.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIEEOC ChargeExhaustion of Administrative RemediesNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationIndividual LiabilityJudgment on PleadingsHispanic Identity
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larkin v. Martin

Lisa Larkin, a secretary at the New York State Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (GOER), sued her supervisor Richard Martin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for sexual harassment. A jury found Martin sexually harassed Larkin but concluded that he had not done so under color of state law, leading to a judgment for the defendant. Larkin subsequently filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial. The Court reviewed the issue of whether Martin acted under color of state law, acknowledging the personal relationship that evolved into an abusive one where Martin leveraged his supervisory authority. The Court determined that the jury's verdict on the 'color of state law' issue was seriously erroneous and granted Larkin's motion for a new trial, setting aside the original verdict.

sexual harassment42 U.S.C. § 1983supervisor misconductcolor of state lawpost-trial motionnew trial grantedjury verdictemployment lawworkplace harassmentabuse of authority
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York v. De Vecchio

Defendant R. Lindley DeVecchio, a former FBI supervisory special agent, was indicted in New York Supreme Court, Kings County, on four counts of second-degree intentional murder. DeVecchio sought to remove the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), claiming the acts were performed 'under color of his office' while handling a confidential informant. The People of the State of New York opposed removal, arguing the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court analyzed the 'color of office' requirement and the necessity of a colorable federal defense, referencing Supreme Court precedents. The court rejected DeVecchio's proposed federal defenses, including immunity and a Kastigar defense, finding they did not meet the stringent requirements for criminal cases. It concluded there was no jurisdictional basis for removal and ordered the case remanded to the state court.

Federal Officer RemovalCriminal ProsecutionIntentional MurderFBI AgentConfidential InformantFederal DefenseImmunity DefenseSubject-Matter JurisdictionState Court ProsecutionRemand
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paul v. Ryan Homes, Inc.

A painter, employed by Color Coatings, Inc., was injured at a Ryan Homes, Inc. construction site in July 2000 when an unsecured plank he used to enter a house tipped, causing him to fall. The plaintiff sued Ryan Homes, Inc. for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), with Ryan Homes, Inc. subsequently filing a third-party action against Color Coatings, Inc. for contractual indemnification. The appellate court examined whether the fall from the plank fell under Labor Law § 240 (1), distinguishing between planks used as passageways and those as functional equivalents of scaffolds or ladders. The court concluded the plank was merely a passageway, not a work tool, thus Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply, and modified the order to dismiss that cause of action.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related hazardUnsecured plankPassageway vs. scaffoldGravity-related accidentSummary judgmentConstruction site injuryWorker fallThird-party actionContractual indemnification
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Brantley

Plaintiff Robert Williams sued defendant Hugh Brantley in state court for malicious prosecution and false arrest after criminal harassment charges brought by Brantley were dismissed. Brantley, an attorney for federally funded Western New York Rural Legal Services, removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), claiming he acted under the color of his federal office. Williams moved to remand the case to state court, arguing Brantley lacked a federal immunity defense. The court, citing Willingham v. Morgan, found that Brantley raised a colorable defense of absolute or qualified immunity, distinguishing Ferri v. Ackerman. The federal court held it was the appropriate forum to decide the merits of Brantley's defense, and consequently, Williams' motion to remand was denied.

Federal Officer RemovalMalicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestFederal ImmunityColor of OfficeRural Legal ServicesMotion to Remand28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1)Immunity DefenseMigrant Labor Camp
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Temple

Eva C. Temple, an IRS employee, was arrested for harassment, and during her apprehension, she threatened New York City police detectives with an IRS audit. Subsequent to her unrelated dismissal from the IRS, Temple left a highly aggressive and threatening voicemail for an IRS employment specialist, James Petherbridge, who had managed her separation. She was indicted on two federal counts: willful oppression under color of law (26 U.S.C. § 7214) for threatening the detectives and forcible interference with a federal employee (18 U.S.C. § 111) for the voicemail. While a jury convicted Temple on both counts, the court granted her motion for acquittal on Count 1, concluding she was not acting under color of law during her arrest. However, the court denied her motions concerning Count 2, affirming that the voicemail constituted a credible and immediate threat of forcible intimidation against Petherbridge in the performance of his duties.

Criminal ProcedureAcquittal MotionNew Trial MotionFederal Statute InterpretationWillful OppressionUnder Color of LawForcible InterferenceFederal Employee IntimidationThreat AssessmentJury Verdict
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff Jenkins, a former black male employee of Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA), brought a discrimination action under Title VII, alleging his discharge was based on race and color. The case was tried without a jury before District Judge McLaughlin. The Court found that Jenkins had a history of poor work performance, insubordination, and numerous disciplinary actions. Specifically, he failed to clean an office as instructed, leading to his termination. The Court resolved credibility issues regarding alleged racist remarks in favor of the defendant and found no evidence of disparate treatment. The New York State Division of Human Rights and Department of Labor had previously rejected Jenkins' claims, and his union refused arbitration. The Court concluded that plaintiff's race and color were not factors in his discharge and entered judgment for the defendant, denying TWA's request for costs and attorney's fees.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment DischargeInsubordinationPoor Work PerformanceDisparate TreatmentBurden of ProofPrima Facie CasePretext ArgumentCredibility Findings
References
6
Case No. 96 Civ. 3889(DC)
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. Golub Corp.

Pro se plaintiff Mark B. Evans brought an employment discrimination case against The Golub Corporation d/b/a Price Chopper Supermarket, alleging race and color discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff claimed disparate treatment and harassment based on several incidents involving supervisors, including denial of a shift transfer, use of profane language, and confrontational interactions, leading to two dismissals from employment. The court, applying the McDonnell-Douglas framework, assessed whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to prove discriminatory intent. Ultimately, the court found that Evans failed to present evidence demonstrating that the adverse treatment was motivated by his race or color. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Employment LawTitle VIIRace DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentHarassmentSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentFederal CourtPro Se LitigationEvidentiary Standards
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 95 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