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

McClernon v. Beaver Dams Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael J. McClernon, Sr., a former President of the Beaver Dams Volunteer Fire Department, sued the Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his civil rights were violated when he was suspended and expelled. McClernon alleged retaliation for exercising his freedom of speech after writing a letter to the U.S. Fire Administration, complaining about unequal grant money distribution and alleging misuse of funds by other fire departments. The court found that while his speech touched on public concern, it had a damaging effect on inter-departmental relations and caused disruption within the Beaver Dams Department. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that the department was justified in expelling McClernon due to the detrimental impact of his speech.

Civil RightsFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechRetaliationPublic EmployeeVolunteer Fire DepartmentSummary JudgmentPublic ConcernInter-organizational CooperationWorkplace Disruption
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2006

Claim of Mayette v. Village of Massena Fire Department

A firefighter for the Village of Massena Fire Department, exposed to xylene fumes and severe sunburns in 1989, developed basal cell carcinoma and psychological conditions, leading him to file for workers' compensation in 2002. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found prima facie evidence, an independent medical examination report was later precluded. Subsequent decisions by a WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board found no causal link between the claimant's exposure and his disability, deeming the treating physician's testimony speculative. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and that the claimant failed to prove causation with competent medical evidence, upholding the rejection of speculative expert opinions.

chemical exposurexylenebasal cell carcinomaskin canceroccupational diseasemedical causationspeculative testimonyexpert witnessappellate reviewfirefighter
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2015

Dechberry v. New York City Fire Department

Plaintiff Eileen Dechberry, representing herself, commenced this action against the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), alleging employment discrimination based on gender and disability, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII, ADA, and the New York City Human Rights Law, as well as wrongful termination without due process. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court dismissed all claims, finding those prior to July 13, 2012, barred by a previous settlement and general release, and those prior to August 21, 2012, as time-barred. The remaining claims for discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment were dismissed for failing to provide plausible factual allegations. The due process claim was also dismissed because an Article 78 proceeding in state court offers an adequate post-deprivation remedy. The plaintiff was granted 14 days to file an amended complaint, excluding the claims already barred or dismissed with prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADANYCHRLMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSettlement AgreementGeneral ReleaseRetaliationHostile Work Environment
References
133
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Department

Petitioners, the New York Times Company and Jim Dwyer, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking the disclosure of records from the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), related to the events of September 11, 2001. Their request included oral histories of FDNY personnel and radio communications. The FDNY denied parts of the request, citing exemptions for law enforcement purposes, intra-agency materials, and personal privacy. The court ruled that the FDNY failed to demonstrate the applicability of the law enforcement exemption. Consequently, the court ordered the disclosure of factual portions of the oral histories, the 911 tapes and transcripts of family members who waived privacy, and non-intra-agency parts of operator, dispatcher, and unit communications, while denying petitioners' request for attorneys' fees.

Freedom of Information LawFOILPublic RecordsSeptember 11World Trade CenterFDNYOral HistoriesRadio CommunicationsPrivacy ExemptionLaw Enforcement Exemption
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levy v. Plainview Fire Department

The case involves a volunteer firefighter, herein referred to as Claimant, from the Plainview Fire Department who sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained while assisting at the World Trade Center disaster in September 2001. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined dual liability existed between the Plainview Fire Department and the self-insured City of New York, asserting both entities directed the Claimant's activities. The City of New York appealed this finding. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of dual employment under General Municipal Law § 209-i (1) since Claimant's services were accepted and directed by both departments.

Workers' CompensationVolunteer FirefighterWorld Trade Center DisasterDual LiabilityGeneral Municipal LawSection 209-iAppealDecision AffirmedInjured in Line of DutySeptember 11
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coburn v. Hewlett Fire Department

The claimant, a volunteer firefighter and president of the Hewlett Fire Department, suffered a myocardial infarction after carrying heavy boxes for an installation dinner, an event authorized by the Board of Fire Commissioners. Initially, a referee awarded benefits under the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law, a decision contested by the Hewlett Fire Department and the State Insurance Fund, who argued it was a social occasion. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the award, interpreting the event as an "inspection or review" and a "meeting" covered under the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law § 5 (1) (e) and (f). The Appellate Division upheld the Board's determination, finding its interpretation of the statute to be reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationVolunteer FirefighterMyocardial InfarctionLine of DutyInstallation DinnerStatutory InterpretationVolunteer Firemen’s Benefit LawAppealsNassau CountyInjury
References
3
Case No. ADJ17388371
Regular
Sep 25, 2025

Doug McCullough vs. Modesto Fire Department, Salida Fire Protection Department District

The defendant, Modesto Fire Department, sought reconsideration of a June 12, 2025, Findings of Fact and Order which imposed two penalties on them for unreasonably delayed benefits to the applicant under Labor Code Section 5814.3. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the Workers' Compensation Judge's report. The Board concluded that the defendant had sufficient information to apply the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code Section 3212.1 and unreasonably denied both inter vivos and death claims, thereby warranting the penalties. The decision also noted a failure to provide accurate notice of case transmission to the Appeals Board as required by Labor Code section 5909(b)(1).

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909TransmissionSixty-Day PeriodNotice of TransmissionElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Report and RecommendationFindings of Fact and OrderLabor Code Section 5814.3
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06419 [222 AD3d 1139]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Martinez v. Eastchester Fire Dist.

Claimant Tina Martinez, a fire department lieutenant, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after contracting COVID-19 at work in December 2020. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, authorized medical treatment, and set her average weekly wage. The employer (Eastchester Fire District and its claims administrator) appealed this decision to the Workers' Compensation Board but failed to serve claimant's new legal representative with the application for review, despite having notice of the substitution of counsel. The Board denied the employer's application for review due to non-compliance with service requirements under 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the employer's application for review based on defective service.

COVID-19 ClaimService RequirementsAppellate ReviewAdministrative AppealDue ProcessLegal RepresentationSubstitution of CounselBoard ReviewWCLJ DecisionEmployer Appeal
References
4
Case No. ADJ7671718
Regular
Nov 28, 2011

BOB BUHRLE vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRE DEPARTMENT, State of California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CDF), State Compensation Insurance Fund/State Contract Services (SCIF)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by the County of San Bernardino Fire Department (CDF) and its insurer. The Board found that the order joining CDF and State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) as defendants was not a "final" order, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board denied the petition for removal, as CDF and SCIF failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. They also did not show that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy if an adverse decision were ultimately issued.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityJoining Party DefendantExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02101, 44 NY3d 45
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

Matter of Schulze v. City of Newburgh Fire Dept.

This case addresses whether the City of Newburgh Fire Department can be reimbursed from workers' compensation benefits for payments made to a disabled firefighter, Adam Schulze, under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Schulze, a retired firefighter with performance of duty (POD) disability retirement, received supplemental payments from the City and workers' compensation awards. The City sought reimbursement, arguing its General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments constituted "salary or wages" or "payments to an employee in like manner as wages" under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 30 (2) or 25 (4) (a). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of reimbursement, holding that General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments are pension supplements, not wages, and are made to retired individuals, not employees. The Court clarified that the proper statutory mechanism for the employer to reduce duplicative benefits is General Municipal Law § 207-a (4-a), which allows for the reduction of future General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments by the amount of workers' compensation awards.

Workers' CompensationFirefighter DisabilityGeneral Municipal LawRetirement BenefitsReimbursementPension SupplementsStatutory InterpretationNew York State LawCourt of AppealsPublic Employment
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 5,502 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