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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Petitioner, a meter service worker, challenged the termination of his employment following three acts of insubordination, stemming from his refusal to undergo a random drug test. He argued that as an employee with a noncommercial driver's license, company policy exempted him from such testing. Despite his union representative advising compliance with the "work now, grieve later" rule, the petitioner maintained his refusal. The court found substantial evidence to support the insubordination charges, noting the petitioner's concession of refusal. It also concluded that the termination penalty was not disproportionate, considering his 11-year tenure, past absenteeism, and a prior drug possession conviction. The court confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition.

insubordinationemployment terminationdrug testingCPLR article 78public sector employmentdisciplinary actionsubstantial evidencepenalty reviewworkplace policyunion advice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The plaintiff, an unnamed individual, was employed by Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) as a conductor when he sustained back and neck injuries in a December 10, 1998 accident. He subsequently filed an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) seeking damages for personal injuries, including lost wages and benefits. Conrail dismissed the plaintiff for alleged insubordination after he failed to attend a scheduled medical evaluation following a prior reinstatement from an earlier dismissal. Conrail moved for partial summary judgment to preclude the plaintiff from recovering future wages and benefits under FELA subsequent to his insubordination-based dismissal, arguing that internal administrative proceedings under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) should have preclusive effect. The Court denied Conrail's motion, ruling that FELA claims for personal injuries and related damages are distinct from RLA-governed employment disputes and are not barred by administrative findings regarding termination for insubordination.

FELARailway Labor ActSummary JudgmentInsubordinationLost WagesPersonal InjuryRailroad WorkersPreclusive EffectCollective Bargaining AgreementDamages
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Claimant, a maintenance worker for the New York City Transit Authority, was terminated for insubordination after repeatedly refusing a painting assignment without a specific respirator, even after one was provided and he was trained. An arbitration hearing upheld his dismissal, finding him guilty of insubordination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed this decision, stating that the arbitrator's factual findings were binding and supported the conclusion of disqualifying misconduct.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductInsubordinationRefusal to WorkArbitrationNew York City Transit AuthorityWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEmployee Termination
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02587 [237 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2025

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The petitioner, a volunteer firefighter, was terminated from the Millwood Fire District after a disciplinary hearing. The District alleged he provided false information on a medical questionnaire in 2020 by not disclosing a "permanently, partially disabled" Workers' Compensation Board designation. He was also charged with misconduct and insubordination for improperly obtaining a physical examination while suspended. The hearing officer found him guilty of both charges, recommending termination, which the District adopted. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the District's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the misconduct and insubordination charges, and that the penalty of termination was not disproportionate.

MisconductInsubordinationVolunteer FirefighterTerminationCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78False StatementsMedical QuestionnaireWorkers' CompensationSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00505 [135 AD3d 948]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2016

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Robert S. Weinstein, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge, appealed an order affirming an arbitration award that terminated his employment. He was terminated following charges of insubordination, misconduct, and incompetence for failing to perform his duties timely and satisfactorily. After an arbitrator upheld the termination, Weinstein filed a petition to vacate the award, arguing the penalty was unduly harsh. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision, ruling that while the excessiveness of a penalty can be reviewed in a compulsory arbitration, in this instance, the termination was not disproportionate to the offenses, citing his insubordination and failure to complete assignments despite remedial efforts.

Arbitration AwardEmployment TerminationWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeInsubordinationMisconductCPLR Article 75Judicial ReviewPenalty DisproportionalityAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Juan Castor, an employee of Laredo Community College (LCC) for twelve years, was terminated for insubordination on September 21, 1994. Six days prior, Castor had a heated discussion with his supervisor. Castor filed a lawsuit alleging retaliatory discharge due to a workers' compensation claim he filed in May 1994. LCC moved for summary judgment, asserting insubordination as the legitimate reason for termination, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Castor failed to provide sufficient controverting evidence of a retaliatory motive to rebut LCC's non-discriminatory reason for his dismissal.

Summary JudgmentRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimInsubordinationCausal LinkCircumstantial EvidenceBurden of ProofLegitimate ReasonEmployment LawAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The claimant, a computer input operator for a brokerage firm, was terminated from her employment due to insubordinate conduct. This involved engaging in an extended personal telephone conversation and responding with sarcastic comments to her manager's repeated orders to hang up, ultimately slamming down the receiver. This behavior was witnessed by co-workers. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that such disrespectful and insubordinate conduct constituted disqualifying misconduct, particularly given the claimant's prior admonishment regarding her attitude. Although the claimant disputed the employer's account, the Board resolved this credibility issue in favor of the employer. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision and affirmed it.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsEmployment TerminationEmployee MisconductInsubordinationSarcastic ConductWorkplace RulesCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppeal Board DecisionWorkplace Discipline
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Petitioner, a sanitation worker for the Sullivan County Public Works Department, challenged his employment termination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The termination followed a disciplinary hearing under Civil Service Law § 75, where he was found guilty of excessive absenteeism, poor job performance, and insubordination. Despite the Hearing Officer's recommendation for a suspension and probation, respondents terminated his employment. The petitioner contended that the findings were unsupported by substantial evidence and the penalty was excessive. The court disagreed, affirming the determination and dismissing the petition, citing substantial evidence for misconduct and insubordination, and finding the penalty proportionate given a pattern of poor work performance and disruptive behavior.

Employment TerminationDisciplinary HearingCivil Service LawAbsenteeismInsubordinationPoor Job PerformanceCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewPenalty ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 1997

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which disqualified the claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The claimant, a hair stylist, was discharged for using profane and insubordinate language towards her employer in the presence of co-workers and clients. Evidence showed the claimant had previously directed similar language at her employer and had been warned about potential termination for such conduct. The Board ruled that these actions constituted disqualifying misconduct, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that insubordinate and disrespectful language towards an employer can be grounds for disqualifying misconduct.

Unemployment InsuranceBenefitsDisqualificationMisconductTerminationInsubordinationProfane LanguageAppealAffirmationWorkplace Conduct
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Petitioners Luis Ferran and John Lawe, representing Local 241 and the Transport Workers Union, petitioned the court to vacate an arbitration award that upheld Columbia University's dismissal of security guard Willie Skelton. Skelton was terminated after refusing to report to work during hours he was not performing jury duty and for insubordination to his supervisors. The Union argued that the dismissal violated public policy under New York Judiciary Law § 519, which prohibits employers from penalizing employees for jury service, and that the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The court, citing United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc., denied the petition, affirming the arbitrator's award. The court found that Skelton was discharged for insubordination and refusal to follow direct orders, not for fulfilling his civic duty, thus not contravening public policy.

Labor DisputeWrongful TerminationArbitration ReviewCollective Bargaining AgreementInsubordinationJury Duty LawPublic Policy ExceptionJudicial Review of ArbitrationEmployment LawUnion Representation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 93 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