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

Burkes v. Enlarged City School District

Petitioner, an 11-year teacher's aide, was terminated by the Enlarged City School District of Troy following misconduct charges. The charges included 16 specifications of inappropriate physical contact, threats, teasing, embarrassing comments, and inappropriate conversations with students and staff. A hearing officer dismissed four charges but found sufficient evidence for the remaining twelve specifications. The Board of Education adopted the recommendation of termination, leading to this CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court found sufficient evidence to support the misconduct findings, rejecting due process claims and upholding the penalty of dismissal due to the pervasive and egregious nature of the conduct.

Employment TerminationTeacher MisconductSchool District DisciplineCPLR Article 78 ReviewDue Process ViolationInappropriate Student ContactWorkplace MisconductAdministrative DeterminationPublic Employee TerminationTeacher's Aide
References
5
Case No. ADJ1098795 (OAK 0342377)
Regular
Jan 19, 2016

ADA WILLIAMS vs. PACIFIC SCHOOL OF RELIGION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying withdrawal from an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) was not a final order. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding she failed to demonstrate the likelihood of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. While applicant alleged inappropriate comments from the AME, there was no evidence of bias, and the necessity of a further evaluation was questioned. The Board also admonished applicant's attorney for unprofessional language in their filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAgreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final orderInterlocutory procedural ordersSubstantive rights and liabilitiesExtraordinary remedySubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shoga v. Fischer

The petitioner, a prisoner, faced disciplinary charges for refusing a direct order and harassment after making inappropriate comments to a social worker about her personal appearance and marital status, despite being told to stop. A tier III disciplinary hearing found him guilty of these charges, and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. The court confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence to support the guilt. The court also rejected the petitioner's claims regarding improperly denied witnesses and alleged hearing officer bias.

Prison DisciplinaryHarassmentRefusing Direct OrderSubstantial EvidenceWitness DenialHearing Officer BiasAdministrative AppealCPLR Article 78 ProceedingPrisoner RightsCorrectional Facility
References
8
Case No. ADJ10570712
Regular
Dec 22, 2017

ANTHONY RUSSELL vs. TNT INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant seeking temporary disability indemnity after sustaining a left foot injury. The applicant was offered modified duty but was terminated from that assignment due to making inappropriate and offensive comments to colleagues. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award of temporary disability, and ruled that the applicant was not entitled to indemnity for the period in question. This decision was based on the finding that the applicant's termination for cause relieved the employer of the obligation to pay temporary total disability, as established by case law.

Temporary Disability IndemnityModified DutyTermination for CausePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardWork Status ReportTransition to WorkReEmployAbility programOffensive CommentsHarassment
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02442
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2018

Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Phillips

This case addresses the New York City Transit Authority's appeal against an arbitration award that reinstated an employee, Tony Aiken, who was terminated for sexual harassment. The arbitrator, despite acknowledging Aiken's inappropriate sexual comments to a colleague, Tulani Melendez, concluded his conduct did not warrant discharge, imposing only a 10-day suspension and sensitivity training. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's confirmation of this award, finding the arbitrator's decision irrational and violative of public policy against workplace sexual harassment. The court criticized the arbitrator's

Sexual HarassmentWorkplace HarassmentPublic PolicyArbitration Award VacaturCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee DisciplineUnion DelegateFirst Department
References
6
Case No. ADJ7525233; ADJ7525240
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

Stephanie Ritchon vs. FREMONT MEDICAL CENTER, KAISER

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the trial judge's February 16, 2011 orders. The Board found that the trial judge acted prematurely and potentially inappropriately by suspending action on stipulations, threatening sanctions without a hearing, and making comments beyond her rulings. The matters are returned to the trial level for further status conferences to determine applicant's desires regarding further litigation, psychiatric claims, PQME waivers, and the adequacy of the proposed settlements. The Board also clarified that the need for rebuttal under *Guzman* and *Ogilvie* will be addressed after these preliminary issues are resolved.

Petition for RemovalPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleMilpitas Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman)Ogilvie v. City and County of San FranciscoWCJ ImpartialityPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Stipulations with Request for AwardOrder Suspending Action on SettlementStatus Conference on AdequacySection 132a Claim
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brown v. Alos Micrographics Corp.

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits after experiencing sexual harassment from a co-employee at Alos Micrographics Corporation, leading to stress and anxiety. The incidents included inappropriate comments and descriptions of dreams, causing the claimant to leave her job. Medical experts diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder causally related to the workplace harassment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and Board found a compensable injury and awarded benefits, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The employer and its carrier appealed the finding of an accidental psychic injury, but the Board's determination was upheld due to substantial evidence and credible medical testimony.

Sexual HarassmentWorkplace StressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderWorkers' CompensationAccidental Psychic InjuryPsychiatric InjuryAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyEmployment Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Shaw

The petitioner, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, sought review of a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that censured him for misconduct. The Commission found that the petitioner had engaged in inappropriate and demeaning conduct, including making sexual comments and unwanted physical contact, with his secretary, Jacqueline Bland. Despite the petitioner's arguments that the allegations were fabricated and his presentation of character witnesses, the Commission adopted the Referee's credibility determination in favor of Bland. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision, accepting the censure. The court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review a subsequent motion by the petitioner to reconsider the determination based on newly discovered evidence.

Judicial MisconductCensureSexual HarassmentCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewNew York Court of AppealsJudicial EthicsDue ProcessNewly Discovered EvidenceJurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherman v. National Grid

Plaintiff Sherry A. Sherman sued National Grid for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. She alleged gender discrimination, retaliation, and unequal pay due to incidents like delayed promotion, inappropriate comments, a physical demands test, and denial of 'storm work.' National Grid moved for summary judgment, arguing many claims were time-barred and others lacked a prima facie case. The court granted summary judgment for National Grid, finding most allegations time-barred and timely claims insufficient to establish discrimination or retaliation. Consequently, the plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationRetaliationAdverse Employment ActionTimeliness of ClaimsPrima Facie CaseContinuing Violation Doctrine
References
25
Case No. 2015-877 N CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

People v. Todd (Norman)

Defendant Norman Todd was convicted of stalking in the fourth degree. The charges arose from three incidents in 2012 where he made inappropriate comments to a McDonald's employee and accosted her while she walked home. The District Court denied motions to suppress his statement and identification testimony. On appeal, the judgment of conviction was reversed and remitted for a new trial. The Appellate Term found the information and evidence sufficient. However, the court ruled that the trial court erred in its Sandoval ruling by permitting inquiry into a 27-year-old attempted rape conviction, deeming it unduly prejudicial. Additionally, the court erred in denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated he could not promise to be impartial due to having a daughter.

Stalking in the Fourth DegreePenal Law § 120.45(1)Sufficiency of InformationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceProbable Cause for ArrestPhoto Array SuggestivenessSandoval RulingJury SelectionChallenge for Cause
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 372 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