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

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. 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. 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. 536047
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Aungst

Frank Aungst, a store manager, sought workers' compensation benefits after contracting COVID-19 and suffering a consequential stroke. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that his COVID-19 infection was an accidental injury arising from his employment, citing his elevated risk as an essential public-facing worker. Furthermore, the Board found a causal link between the COVID-19 infection and his subsequent stroke, relying on medical testimony. The employer and carrier appealed this decision. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's findings, concluding that substantial evidence supported both the work-related COVID-19 contraction and the causally-related consequential stroke.

COVID-19Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryConsequential InjuryStrokeCausationElevated RiskStore ManagerEssential WorkerAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 92
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Aungst

Claimant Frank Aungst, a store manager for Family Dollar, contracted COVID-19 in April 2020 and subsequently suffered a stroke. He filed a workers' compensation claim, alleging work-related exposure due to his frequent public contact in an essential retail role with inadequate protective measures. The Workers' Compensation Board established the claim, applying a "prevalence" framework for COVID-19 exposure, which assesses significantly elevated hazards in the workplace. The employer argued this framework was inconsistent with the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's decision, finding the "prevalence" framework compatible with current interpretations of the law, and that the Board's findings of work-related COVID-19 and consequential stroke were supported by substantial evidence.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCausal RelationshipWorkplace ExposurePrevalence FrameworkStrokeEssential WorkerRetailNew York Court of Appeals
References
15
Case No. CV-24-1249
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Frank McGann

Claimant Frank McGann appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, an alleged occupational disease. The Board ruled there was insufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between his condition and his 32 years of employment as a senior meter reader for Suffolk County Water Authority. However, the Appellate Division found that the Board misread or overlooked the uncontroverted medical opinions of both the treating physician, Harold Avella, and the self-insured employer's orthopedic consultant, Steven Goodman. Both doctors had reaffirmed their causal relationship opinions in addendums, even after being advised of claimant's post-retirement pickleball activities. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

occupational diseasecarpal tunnel syndromecausationmedical opinionworkers' compensation benefitsrepetitive use injuryevidenceadministrative appealjudicial reviewself-insured employer
References
5
Case No. 533961
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Frank P. Sausto

Claimant Frank P. Sausto, a plumber, was injured and awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer and carrier alleged he made material misrepresentations regarding his concurrent business, FS Blades, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (1). The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) found a violation, imposing a mandatory penalty of disqualification from benefits for November 2, 2019, through December 3, 2019, but declined a discretionary permanent disqualification. The carrier appealed, arguing for a more severe discretionary penalty. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the violation and that the Board's penalty decision was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aMaterial MisrepresentationFraudDisability BenefitsConcurrent EmploymentAppellate ReviewPenalty DisqualificationWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2012

Zito v. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP

Plaintiff Roseanne Zito sued her former employer, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson, LLP, alleging age, gender, and disability discrimination, as well as retaliation, following her termination as part of a reduction-in-force. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the age and gender discrimination claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of supporting evidence. The disability discrimination and retaliation claims were also dismissed due to the plaintiff's inability to demonstrate a causal link or discriminatory intent related to her FMLA leave or perceived disability. State and local law claims were dismissed concurrently with the federal claims.

Age DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-ForceEEOC ExhaustionTitle VII ClaimsADEA ClaimsADA Claims
References
63
Showing 1-10 of 235 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