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

Farrell v. Dolce

John P. Farrell, a former City of White Plains firefighter, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the termination of his General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) benefits. Farrell, who retired due to a line-of-duty injury, had voluntarily opted for Retirement and Social Security Law § 384-d benefits, which include mandatory retirement at age 62. The City of White Plains subsequently ceased his supplemental payments on his 62nd birthday, citing General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Farrell argued that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) preempted the age-based termination and that he was denied due process because the benefit was terminated without a hearing. The court, presided over by Justice John R. LaCava, found that Farrell’s section 207-a (2) benefits fell under the 'continued benefit payments' exception of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), making the ADEA inapplicable. The court concluded that the respondents' determination to terminate benefits was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and that Farrell was not denied due process given the legal basis of the decision. Therefore, Farrell's petition was denied.

CPLR Article 78General Municipal Law § 207-aAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)Disability BenefitsFirefighter BenefitsMandatory Retirement AgeDue ProcessStatutory InterpretationPublic Safety
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2015

Browne v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Kenneth Owen Browne sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, denying his claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Browne alleged disability since December 2007 due to conditions like degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and carpal tunnel syndrome. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously found Browne not disabled, concluding he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court also addressed and rejected Browne's arguments regarding the ALJ's application of the treating physician rule, and alleged failures to consider his obesity and medication side effects.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActJudicial reviewResidual functional capacityTreating physician ruleSubstantial evidenceAdministrative Law JudgeMedical evidenceObesityMedication side effects
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Artus

Plaintiff Nathan Brown, a New York State prison inmate, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unlawful retaliation and cruel and unusual punishment against several Department of Correctional Services employees, including defendants Dale Artus and R.J. Minogue. The claims arose from an alleged assault following Brown's complaint against a corrections officer. Defendants Artus and Minogue moved for partial summary judgment, asserting lack of personal involvement and qualified immunity, while Brown cross-moved for Rule 11 sanctions. The District Court, adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, granted partial summary judgment by dismissing the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Artus due to insufficient evidence of personal involvement. However, the motion was otherwise denied, preserving the Eighth Amendment claims against both defendants and the retaliation claim against Minogue, as triable issues of fact remained. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions was also denied.

Civil Rights ActionInmate RetaliationEighth Amendment ViolationCruel and Unusual PunishmentQualified Immunity DefensePartial Summary JudgmentRule 11 SanctionsSupervisory LiabilityFirst Amendment ClaimPrison Conditions
References
66
Case No. CV 86-1336
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1987

Brown v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Donald Brown, a Port Authority Police lieutenant, initiated litigation against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and several officials. Brown alleged that he faced disciplinary action, including a counseling memorandum, after circulating a memo that criticized the defendants' inadequate anti-terrorist preparations at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He claimed these actions violated his First Amendment right to free speech and caused him severe psychological stress. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Brown's speech was not a matter of public concern under established Supreme Court precedents like Pickering and Connick. Brown cross-moved for summary judgment. The Court denied both motions, finding that the subject of Brown's memorandum, concerning public safety at a major international airport, could be considered a matter of public concern. Furthermore, the Court noted that disputed material facts, such as the actual impact of the memorandum on office harmony and discipline, precluded granting summary judgment to the plaintiff.

First AmendmentPublic Employee SpeechRetaliationMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentPolice DepartmentTerrorism PreparednessWhistleblower ProtectionFreedom of SpeechPort Authority
References
13
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06422 [222 AD3d 1147]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Brown v. Buffalo Transp., Inc.

Claimant Tara Brown sought workers' compensation benefits after a motor vehicle accident, identifying Buffalo Transportation, Inc. as her employer. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found Brown was an employee of Buffalo Transportation and that State National Insurance Company, as the carrier for Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. (SPLI), was responsible for coverage. However, the Board later amended its decision, affirming Brown's employment with Buffalo Transportation but concluding she was not a leased employee covered by SPLI's policy, thus placing the Uninsured Employers' Fund on notice. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's amended decision, upholding the finding that Brown was an employee of Buffalo Transportation and not a leased employee, thereby distinguishing the matter from prior similar cases.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsEmployment RelationshipProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Insurance Coverage DisputesEmployer LiabilityUninsured Employers' FundAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AmendmentMotor Vehicle Accident ClaimStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Sagamore Hotel

Plaintiff Brown sued Kennington Properties, Inc. and Green Island Associates (defendants) for injuries from a 1985 construction accident, moving for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants and third-party defendant Warren and Washington Industrial Development Agency (IDA) cross-moved for dismissal or indemnity against L.F. Driscoll Company. The court found that service on Green Island through Kennington, its general partner, was proper and timely. On the merits, the court reversed the lower court, granting Brown summary judgment on liability against Kennington and Green Island, as the defendants failed to contradict Brown's prima facie showing that a safety device (cleat) malfunctioned. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment for common-law indemnity to Kennington, Green Island, and the IDA against L.F. Driscoll Company, who was solely responsible for safety practices and the faulty cleat. L.F. Driscoll's cross-claim was dismissed.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsService of ProcessPartnership LawCommon-Law IndemnityThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 536090
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Tara Brown

Tara Brown sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained as a medical transport driver. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found Buffalo Transportation, Inc. to be her employer and State National Insurance Company as the responsible carrier. However, in an amended decision, the Board concluded that Brown was an employee of Buffalo Transportation but *not* a leased employee covered by State National's policy with Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. Consequently, the Uninsured Employers' Fund was put on notice due to Buffalo Transportation's lack of coverage. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the distinction from previous cases and the finding that Brown was not a leased employee.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipProfessional Employment Organization (PEO)Leased EmployeesInsurance CoverageUninsured Employers' FundAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewEvidence SufficiencyBoard Jurisdiction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2000

Farrell v. Child Welfare Administration

Plaintiff Janet Farrell, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit against the New York City Child Welfare Administration (CWA), alleging wrongful termination based on national origin in violation of Title VII and other civil rights statutes. Farrell claimed she was fired from her caseworker position in 1995 after failing a training program and receiving a low exam score. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found no evidence of national origin discrimination, concluding she was terminated due to her failure to complete requisite training. CWA moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court granted, dismissing the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The Court allowed Farrell to file an amended complaint by January 20, 2000, to provide more specific factual allegations to support her claims.

Employment discriminationTitle VIINational origin discriminationPro se litigantRule 12(c) motionJudgment on the pleadingsFailure to state a claimMunicipal liabilityCivil Rights ActNew York Executive Law
References
33
Case No. 534608
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Tracey Brown

Claimant Tracey Brown, a cleaner for the New York City Transit Authority, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging anxiety and depression due to COVID-19 exposure and inadequate safety measures at work. The employer controverted the claim, and a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially disallowed it. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, finding that Brown failed to establish a causally-related psychological injury by competent medical evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's factual finding, that the medical proof provided by psychologist Eli Isaacson was insufficient due to not considering Brown's prior anxiety treatment or anxiety outside of work, was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryAnxietyDepressionCausal ConnectionCOVID-19Medical EvidenceAppellate DivisionBoard DecisionSelf-insured Employer
References
12
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
Showing 1-10 of 282 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