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
Jan 24, 2013

Conn v. Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (In re Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP)

This case involves Vittoria Conn, a former employee of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, who initiated a putative class action adversary proceeding. She alleged violations of the federal, New York, and California WARN Acts due to mass layoffs without proper advance notice. Dewey & LeBoeuf, the Debtor, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that these claims should be processed through the claims allowance system and that the 'liquidating fiduciary principle' exempted them from WARN Act obligations. The Court denied the Debtor's motion to dismiss, concluding that WARN Act claims, which seek equitable relief, are appropriately brought in an adversary proceeding. The Court postponed decisions on class certification and the administrative or priority status of the claims, noting these issues are to be resolved in the main bankruptcy case.

WARN ActNY WARN ActCAL WARN ActClass ActionAdversary ProceedingBankruptcyMotion to DismissEquitable ReliefLiquidating Fiduciary PrincipleEmployee Layoffs
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Forbes

Claimant, a psychiatric social worker, was reclassified as an 'independent contractor' by Brooklyn Center for Families in Crisis, Inc. for the last six months of her employment, receiving an hourly rate. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the Center exercised sufficient direction and control over her work, establishing her status as an employee and thus her eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. Despite the re-designation, the claimant continued to treat the same patients in the same manner on the Center’s premises, worked under a supervisor, and the Center established the fees. The court affirmed the Board’s ruling, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant and similarly situated individuals were employees of the Center.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPsychiatric Social WorkerEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEmployee BenefitsEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ1310387 (OAK 0333577)
Regular
Jan 16, 2014

DOREEN DAHL vs. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for industrial injury to the applicant's neck and right shoulder. The primary issue on reconsideration was whether the applicant successfully rebutted the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor in the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS). The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant's vocational expert provided sufficient testimony to rebut the PDRS rating for the shoulder injury by focusing on similarly situated workers, as permitted by *Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco*. The Board clarified that this *LeBoeuf* analysis can apply even with less than 100% permanent disability and does not impermissibly rely on non-industrial factors when assessing DFEC. Therefore, the WCJ's decision awarding future medical treatment and 79% permanent disability is affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical Records TechnicianCumulative PeriodPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentDiminished Future Earning CapacityPermanent Disability Rating Schedule
References
11
Case No. ADJ800932 (OAK 0299866) ADJ2725270 (OAK 0299867) ADJ635812 (OAK 0299868) ADJ4541817 (OAK 0308810)
Regular
Feb 16, 2010

JOAN STEPP vs. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the previous award, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found the prior decision to be insufficient regarding apportionment of disability among multiple injuries as required by *Benson*. Additionally, the Board questioned the vocational expert's analysis for a finding of total permanent disability, as it did not adequately address retraining feasibility per *LeBoeuf*. The matter is remanded for the Agreed Medical Evaluator to provide clarified apportionment opinions and for a new decision consistent with *Benson* and *LeBoeuf*.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuriesCumulative TraumaPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorBensonLeBoeufVocational Expert
References
3
Case No. 93 Civ. 7146(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2002

NEW YORK STATE NAT. ORG. FOR WOMEN v. Pataki

This case addresses several post-appeal motions in a class-action lawsuit. Plaintiffs sought curative notice relief related to a permanent injunction against the New York State Division of Human Rights' 1995 Intake Rules. Defendants cross-moved to dismiss the entire action, arguing a prior Second Circuit ruling vacated all relief. Plaintiff Class-Member Abby Oshinsky moved to reinstate her discrimination claims, and the New York City Housing Authority moved to intervene. The court denied defendants' cross-motion, affirming the injunction against the 1995 Intake Rules was not appealed and thus survived. However, plaintiffs' motion for curative notice relief and Oshinsky's motion were denied, with the latter rendering the NYCHA's intervention motion moot.

Due ProcessClass ActionPermanent InjunctionAdministrative PracticesDivision of Human RightsProcedural Due ProcessEqual ProtectionDiscrimination ClaimsJudicial ReviewAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Lavine

In this Article 78 proceeding, the petitioner sought to vacate the determination of respondents denying her application for payment of certain babysitting expenses. The petitioner, a recipient of public assistance, incurred these expenses to attend her brother's funeral in an emergency situation. She attempted to secure prior approval from the Social Services Office but was unable to reach her caseworker or supervisor. Upon her return, her request for payment was denied on the procedural ground of failing to obtain prior approval. The court found this determination to be arbitrary and capricious given the emergency circumstances and the department's lack of a procedure for such situations. The court vacated the determination and remitted the matter for consideration on the merits.

babysitting expensespublic assistanceemergency servicesprior approvalsocial services regulationsarbitrary and capriciousfair hearingOnondaga Countytemporary absenceprocedural grounds
References
1
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03236 [194 AD3d 1300]
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Matter of Casey v. United Ref. Co. of Pa.

Cheryl A. Casey, a store manager, filed a workers' compensation claim for a mental injury, specifically posttraumatic stress disorder with depression/anxiety, following a threatening encounter with a customer. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, determining that the stress experienced by the claimant was not greater than that of other similarly situated workers. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion, noting the absence of physical assault or an actual weapon during the incident and that the situation was not vastly different from expected stressors in a 24-hour convenience store management role.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMental InjuryPosttraumatic Stress DisorderAnxietyDepressionCausally-Related InjuryStress in WorkplaceSimilarly Situated WorkersStore ManagerCustomer Incident
References
6
Case No. Nos. 96 Civ. 7435 (JSR), 96 Civ. 8141 (JSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1997

In Re Baesa Securities Litigation

This case consolidates two class actions alleging securities fraud against Buenos Aires Embotelladora S.A. (Baesa), Pepsico Inc., and Charles H. Beach. Plaintiffs claimed defendants issued false statements overstating Baesa's financial position, particularly concerning its Brazilian subsidiary. The court addressed the Private Securities Reform Act of 1995, concluding that "recklessness" still constitutes scienter, but "motive and opportunity" are no longer automatically sufficient to infer fraudulent intent. The complaint was dismissed for failing to plead scienter with sufficient particularity, as subsidiary fraud cannot be automatically imputed to the parent. However, plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

Securities FraudPrivate Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995Scienter Pleading StandardRecklessnessMotive and OpportunityClass ActionCorporate MisconductPleading RequirementsConsolidated ActionsLeave to Replead
References
26
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00084 [201 AD3d 1064]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Matter of Sow (NY Minute Messenger, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns an appeal by NY Minute Messenger, Inc. (NYMM) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that NYMM was liable for unemployment insurance contributions for claimant Alfousseyn Sow and similarly situated individuals, determining an employer-employee relationship existed. NYMM, a logistics broker, had engaged Sow as a driver via a third-party administrator. The Department of Labor initially found an employment relationship, which was sustained by an Administrative Law Judge and affirmed by the Board. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship based on factors like NYMM issuing identification, assigning work, setting pay, and handling complaints. The court also upheld the application of this finding to others similarly situated and the denial of certain testimony as cumulative or irrelevant.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployer-Employee DisputeIndependent Contractor StatusLogistics IndustryDriver ClassificationAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial Evidence StandardControl Test
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06529
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

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

The Court of Appeals addressed consolidated appeals concerning four claimants seeking Workers' Compensation benefits for psychological injuries (e.g., PTSD) due to COVID-19 workplace exposure in 2020. The Workers' Compensation Board had disallowed these claims, finding the stress was not greater than that experienced by similarly situated workers. The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board failed to consider "particular vulnerabilities" and applied "disparate burdens." The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions. It held that particular vulnerabilities are immaterial and that emotional stress-induced psychological injury is compensable only if the stress is "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment," a standard the claimants did not meet. The court also noted recent legislative amendments to the Workers' Compensation Law that establish a more favorable standard for PTSD claims, but clarified they do not apply retroactively to these cases.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryPTSDCOVID-19 ExposureWorkplace StressCompensability of ClaimsAccidental InjuryAppellate Division ReversedCourt of Appeals DecisionSimilarly Situated Workers Standard
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 261 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