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

Tancredi v. Malfitano

Plaintiffs, a group of police officers, filed an action against various Town officials and the Town and Village of Harrison, New York. They alleged violations of their Fourth Amendment rights and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, specifically claiming that their conversations at the police department's front desk were secretly recorded. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public and common workspace area of the police station's front desk, thereby dismissing both their Fourth Amendment and statutory claims.

Fourth AmendmentUnreasonable SearchExpectation of PrivacyWorkplace PrivacyPolice Department911 Communications SystemAudio RecordingSummary JudgmentFederal Civil Rights42 U.S.C. § 1983
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc.

Plaintiff Erika Flores was fired by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. on December 31, 1998, and filed suit alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Flores claims her supervisor's demeanor changed after disclosing her pregnancy and that her termination was discriminatory, despite no prior warnings. The defendant argued the termination was due to absenteeism and poor performance. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Flores presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding pretext. The court also denied the defendant's motion to strike claims for reinstatement and front pay, citing outstanding issues regarding the applicability of after-acquired evidence.

Pregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationPretextPrima Facie CaseAfter-Acquired EvidenceReinstatementFront Pay
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broggy v. Rockefeller Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Laurence Broggy, an interior window cleaner for ISS International Service System, Inc., was injured after falling from a desk while cleaning a window on the eighth floor of a commercial building. He had placed one foot on the window sill and another on a desk, and when a window unexpectedly slammed shut, he lost his balance and fell backward onto the desk. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 202, 240, and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence, and moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially granted this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denying the plaintiffs' motion and granting summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply to routine interior window cleaning and that Broggy's injuries were not caused by the lack of a statutorily enumerated safety device.

Labor LawWindow Cleaning InjuryFall from DeskSummary Judgment ReversedAppellate DecisionRoutine Maintenance ExceptionElevation-Related RiskStatutory InterpretationWorker NegligenceNew York Labor Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C.

Frank Fernandez, an x-ray technician, sued his former employer, North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C., for retaliation under Title VII after filing a national origin discrimination complaint. A jury found in favor of Fernandez, awarding back pay, front pay, and punitive damages. North Shore subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to modify the damage awards. The court denied North Shore's motions for judgment and a new trial, affirmed the jury's back pay award, but vacated and reduced the front pay award from $160,000 to $50,000, and the punitive damages award from $100,000 to $50,000.

RetaliationTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationBack PayFront PayPunitive DamagesMitigation of DamagesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionEquitable Relief
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hine v. Mineta

This case addresses claims of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. Following a three-week trial, a jury found for the plaintiff on the hostile work environment claim but awarded no damages for emotional distress or net back wages, instead granting $58,625.86 for net loss of benefits. This memorandum supplements the Court's earlier oral decisions, formally adopting the jury's advisory verdict which denied back pay. The Court also denied front pay, concluding that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by not actively seeking suitable employment for over seven years and that any such award would be overly speculative. Consequently, the Court affirmed the denial of back pay and denied the plaintiff's request for front pay.

Gender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VII Civil Rights ActAdvisory Jury VerdictBack PayFront PayMitigation of DamagesEmotional DistressAir Traffic Controller
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Continental Casualty Co.

Peterson sued Continental Casualty Company (CNA) seeking short- and long-term disability benefits under ERISA. CNA denied the claims, arguing Peterson was not disabled from a modified, sedentary desk job CBS assigned him after his injury. Peterson cross-moved for summary judgment and sought to add CBS as a defendant for failing to provide plan documents. The court denied both summary judgment motions, finding CNA's interpretation of Peterson's 'regular occupation' as the temporary desk job to be arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded both disability claims to the Claim Administrator to re-evaluate based on Peterson's actual regular occupation prior to his injury, noting that an 'accommodation' job is not the 'regular occupation'. Peterson's request to amend the complaint to add CBS was also denied due to lack of demonstrated prejudice and insufficient grounds for ERISA sanctions.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewClaim Administrator DiscretionRegular Occupation DefinitionTotal Disability DefinitionCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSpinal Cord Compression
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Townsend v. Exchange Insurance

Vincent Townsend sued Exchange Insurance Company, Selective Insurance Company of America, and Selective Insurance Group, Inc., alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and New York Human Rights Law (HRL), constructive discharge, compelled self-defamation, and an ERISA violation. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for back pay, front pay, punitive damages, and compensatory damages under the ADEA, as well as an age discrimination claim related to James Chavanne's hiring. The court granted dismissal of punitive damages under ADEA and HRL, compensatory damages for emotional pain under ADEA, and certain periods of back pay. The court denied dismissal of back pay from April 7, 1997, onward, and front pay (with leave to renew). The court also dismissed the age discrimination claim related to Chavanne's hiring due to lack of jurisdiction and being time-barred.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary Judgment MotionBack PayFront PayPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesConstructive DischargeERISAEEOC Exhaustion
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stratton v. DEPARTMENT FOR AGING CITY OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff Joyce Stratton sued the New York City Department for the Aging (DFTA) and Commissioner Prema Mathai-Davis for age discrimination and retaliation after her termination at age 61 and failure to be rehired. A jury found for Stratton, awarding $500,000 in damages, determining age was a factor and the non-rehire was retaliatory and willful. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, erroneous admission of statistical evidence, and excessive damages. Plaintiff cross-moved for front pay and restoration of benefits. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial regarding statistical evidence. The motion for a new trial due to excessive damages was denied on condition that plaintiff accept a remittitur reducing the award from $500,000 to $373,886.23. Plaintiff's motion for front pay and benefits, totaling $378,000, was granted.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawJury VerdictPost-trial MotionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialRemittiturFront PayBack Pay
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tse v. New York University

This Memorandum & Order addresses Defendant New York University's (NYU) motion in limine to exclude economic damages, reinstatement, and arguments that Plaintiff Doris Tse was qualified for another job. NYU argued that Dr. Tse's receipt of long-term disability (LTD) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits precluded her claims for front and back pay and reinstatement under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The Court, referencing Supreme Court precedent in Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., rejected NYU's estoppel argument, finding that receipt of disability benefits does not automatically bar ADA claims, especially as the SSA does not consider reasonable accommodations. The Court also declined to offset potential lost wage awards with disability benefits, citing the collateral source rule and the goal of deterring discrimination. Consequently, the motion was denied in all respects, allowing Dr. Tse to proceed with her claims for reasonable accommodation, back pay, reinstatement, and front pay at trial.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationMotion in LimineBack PayFront PayReinstatementLong-Term Disability BenefitsSocial Security Disability Insurance BenefitsCollateral Source Rule
References
27
Case No. ADJ8670595, ADJ8670435
Regular
Nov 24, 2015

PATRICIO PEREZ vs. FRONT PORCH

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for back and psychiatric injuries. The employer contested findings regarding temporary disability, psychiatric injury, and self-procured medical treatment, arguing the WCJ erred by not applying the good faith personnel action defense. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, the Board requires a full analysis of the good faith personnel action defense and clarification on the duration of modified work provided.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryPsychiatric InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilitySelf-Procured Medical TreatmentMedical Provider Network (MPN)Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 69 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