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

Humphrey v. Council of Jewish Federations

Tyrone Humphrey sued his former employer, Council of Jewish Federations, Inc., alleging racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Humphrey claimed experiences of retrenchment, demotion, a racially hostile environment, denial of leave, unequal pay, negative performance evaluations, and retaliatory termination. The defendant moved to dismiss, citing untimely EEOC filings, unincluded claims, mootness, and statute of limitations. The court found Humphrey's EEOC filings timely due to a worksharing agreement and his hostile environment claim reasonably related. The court also ruled § 1981 claims were timely and prior arbitration did not preclude federal civil rights claims, ultimately denying the motion to dismiss in its entirety.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Motion to DismissTimeliness of ClaimsEEOC Worksharing AgreementStatute of LimitationsArbitration PreclusionHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. RAV Investigative & Security Services Ltd.

Aaron S. Humphrey, a pro se plaintiff, initiated this action against RAV Investigative & Security Services Ltd., RAV Trade Shows Inc., Ron Allen, and other unnamed entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Humphrey, a former security guard for RAV, contended that RAV frequently issued bouncing paychecks, failed to remit child support and union dues deductions, and did not forward withheld taxes to relevant authorities, resulting in minimum wage and overtime violations. Additionally, he claimed retaliatory termination subsequent to reporting RAV to the Department of Labor. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss Humphrey's individual claims, determining that there were sufficient factual allegations to support claims for overtime, spread-of-hours, minimum wage, unlawful deductions, and FLSA retaliation. However, the court granted the defendants' motion to strike the class and collective action allegations due to Humphrey's pro se status.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ViolationsMinimum WageOvertime PayRetaliatory TerminationUnlawful DeductionsBounced PaychecksChild Support DeductionsUnion Dues
References
34
Case No. ADJ11952165
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

BILL HUMPHREY vs. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, PSI Through CJPIA, administered by YORK RISK GROUP

This case involved applicant Bill Humphrey's claim for psychiatric injury against the City of San Luis Obispo. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that Humphrey sustained an industrial psychiatric injury. The Board affirmed the judge's determination that while a job reclassification was a good faith personnel action, it was not the substantial cause of the injury. Instead, increased job duties and applicant's internal pressure were deemed the predominant causes of his psychiatric condition.

Labor Code Section 3208.3good faith personnel actionpsychiatric injurypredominant causesubstantial causemultilevel analysisRolda v. Pitney BowesInc.panel qualified medical evaluatorPQME
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ifill v. Saha Food Stores

Plaintiff Humphrey Ifill, an electrician, sustained severe burn injuries on January 17, 1994, while replacing a circuit breaker in an energized electrical panel at a supermarket owned by defendants Saha Food Stores, Pioneer Supermarkets, and 5610 Fifth Realty Corporation. He alleged that the store manager and owner refused his requests to de-energize the circuit, thereby forcing him to work under unsafe conditions. Ifill filed an action against the defendants, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. During the proceedings, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding that there was a triable issue of fact concerning the defendants' control over the plaintiff's work methods.

Electrician InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSupervisory ControlEnergized EquipmentBurn InjuriesComparative Negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2001

Padilla v. Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corp.

This case involves a plaintiff, a laborer, who suffered an injury while working on a renovation project for Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corporation, whose construction manager was Humphreys & Harding, Inc. The plaintiff was guiding a concrete sump housing into an excavation vault when it slipped, amputating two toes. The plaintiff initiated an action against the owner, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and specific Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR part 23). The owner, in turn, filed a third-party action against Humphreys & Harding for indemnification. The motion court initially dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, but on appeal, the decision was reversed. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently raised triable issues of fact regarding violations of Industrial Code sections 23-9.2 (g), 23-9.4 (e) (1) and (2), and 23-9.2 (b) (2), which were concrete enough to support a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6).

Construction accidentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code violationsSummary judgment appealAppellate reviewNondelegable dutyTriable issues of factPersonal injuryConstruction site safetyBackhoe operation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. Norden

This case addresses whether an admission of paternity made to a social worker by a reputed father, in the presence of the mother, is a privileged communication under CPLR 4508. The court applied four conditions for establishing privilege and determined that the benefit of disclosing relevant paternity evidence outweighs any potential injury to the social worker-client relationship, as a correct paternity determination is vital for the child, mother, and community. Furthermore, drawing an analogy to attorney-client privilege, the court held that statements made to a social worker when two parties consult on a matter of common interest are not confidential in a subsequent action between them. Consequently, the court denied the motion to exclude the social worker's testimony, deeming the statements admissible in this civil filiation proceeding.

PaternitySocial Worker PrivilegeCPLR 4508ConfidentialityFamily Court ActEvidence AdmissibilityChild SupportIllegitimate ChildFiliation ProceedingWigmore Evidence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1992

Claim of Humphrey v. Nimmonsburg Fire Co.

The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and was awarded benefits under the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law. The Board found the claimant had a 75% loss of earning capacity due to an injury suffered in the line of duty as a volunteer firefighter. The employer argued that the claimant's earning capacity had increased, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. The court reviewed the employer's other contentions and deemed them without merit. Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed.

Volunteer FirefightersEarning Capacity LossLine of Duty InjuryBenefit AwardWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DecisionSubstantial EvidenceEmployer ContentionsInjury CompensationVolunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2004

Humphreys v. 201 Marine Avenue, LLC

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The order had granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's Workers' Compensation affirmative defense and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment based on that defense. The appellate court modified the order by denying the plaintiff's motion to strike, finding triable issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment by the defendant. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment for the same reason, concluding that factual issues precluded summary judgment for the defendant.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseEmployment DisputeAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactOrder ModificationDenial of Motion
References
2
Case No. ADJ6808242
Regular
Sep 02, 2010

JEFFERY HANDY vs. RONALD HUMPHREY, dba, ROOTERMAN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the original decision denying the applicant's claim for a back injury. This rescission was based on a settlement reached between the applicant and the Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund via a Compromise and Release. The case is now returned to the trial level for the Administrative Law Judge to review the settlement. If the settlement is not approved, the original denial decision may be reinstated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJEFFERY HANDYRONALD HUMPHREYROOTERMANADJ6808242OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONworkers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)employmentlower back injury
References
0
Case No. FRE 0243878
Regular
Apr 01, 2008

DIANA HUMPHREY vs. MCDONALD'S, CALIFORNIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION

This case involves an employer's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) award regarding an employee's shoulder injury. The employer argued the temporary disability rate was incorrectly determined and disputed the period for which benefits were awarded, citing a prior agreement and evidence of return to work. The WCAB granted reconsideration, amended the award to defer the issue of the temporary disability period, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and medical evidence to determine that period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityAverage Weekly EarningsWage LossAttorney FeesLabor Code 4650(d)Labor Code 4660(d)Petition for RemovalPanel Qualified Medical Examiner
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 14 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