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

Gagliardo v. Arlington Central School District

This case involves parents (plaintiffs) seeking tuition reimbursement from the Arlington Central School District (defendant) under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) for the unilateral placement of their son, Stephen G., at Oakwood Friends School. The dispute arose because both parties agreed Stephen needed private schooling, but disagreed on the specific institution; the district recommended The Karafin School, while the parents chose Oakwood Friends. The court, conducting a de novo review, reversed the State Review Officer's decision, finding that the district's proposed placement at The Karafin School did not provide Stephen with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. The court determined that Karafin's highly individualized and restrictive setting was inappropriate for Stephen, whose primary issue was social anxiety due to bullying, not a severe learning disability. Conversely, Oakwood Friends School was deemed an appropriate placement, offering academic rigor and a supportive, bully-free environment conducive to Stephen's emotional and social development. The court concluded that equitable considerations favored the parents, ordering the district to reimburse them for Stephen's tuition.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationTuition ReimbursementLeast Restrictive EnvironmentFree Appropriate Public EducationSummary JudgmentAsperger's SyndromeSocial AnxietyEmotional DisturbanceUnilateral Placement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 1992

In re Shawn V.

Respondent appealed an order from the Family Court of Montgomery County which adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent for petit larceny and placed him in a State Division for Youth facility for 12 months. Respondent argued that this placement was not the least restrictive available alternative under Family Court Act § 352.2 (2). The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that extensive reports, including psychiatric, psychological, and probation reports, evidenced serious emotional and behavioral problems, a history of aggressive and antisocial conduct, and a clear threat to both himself and the community. Professionals consistently recommended secure placement, deeming direct community placement unwise due to the risk of continued antisocial behavior, and the examining psychologist indicated a risk of sex offense. The court concluded that ample evidence supported the Family Court's determination that placement in a Division for Youth facility was the appropriate least restrictive alternative.

Juvenile DelinquencyFamily Court ActLeast Restrictive AlternativeState Division for YouthPetit LarcenyBehavioral DisordersEmotional DisturbancesCommunity SafetyPsychiatric EvaluationProbation Report
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nicholas M.

This case concerns a petition filed by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) for a 12-month extension of placement for Nicholas, a hearing-impaired child adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent, who committed an act that would constitute endangering the welfare of a child. Nicholas, through his Law Guardian, opposed the extension, arguing that OCFS placement was not the least restrictive, violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying effective treatment, and failed to provide necessary special education services. The court, presided over by Justice Michael L. Hanuszczak, found that OCFS placement remained the least restrictive alternative, balancing Nicholas's needs with community protection, and dismissed the ADA violation claim due to insufficient evidence. However, the court did find that Nicholas was not receiving mandated speech language therapy and a teacher of the deaf as outlined in his individualized education program (IEP). Consequently, the court granted the extension of placement with OCFS for 12 months, from July 20, 2001, to July 20, 2002, and ordered OCFS to conduct an evaluation regarding Nicholas's special education needs and submit an educational service plan.

Juvenile DelinquencyFoster CarePlacement ExtensionAmericans With Disabilities ActADASpecial EducationIndividualized Education ProgramIEPSexual Offender TreatmentLeast Restrictive Placement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 1990

In re Rafael M.

An order of disposition from the Family Court, Bronx County, adjudicating an appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him in custody, was unanimously affirmed. The appellant admitted to acts of unauthorized vehicle use, and despite initial parole conditions, showed a lack of seriousness and a history of truancy. Psychological evaluations recommended a structured environment due to the appellant's low intellectual function, poor judgment, and impulse control. The court determined that placement with a private agency or the Division for Youth was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the appellant's needs and community protection. The appellate court found that the Family Court acted within its broad discretion in reaching its conclusion.

Juvenile DelinquencyFamily LawProbation ViolationTruancyPlacementLeast Restrictive AlternativeChild WelfareAppellate ReviewPsychological EvaluationVehicle Theft
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waterson v. Plank Road Motel Corp.

Suzanne Waterson, a former employee of Best Western Inn, sued for sexual harassment and discriminatory termination. Defendants moved to bar testimony on compensatory and punitive damages and to restrict the testimony of another former employee, Anne Marie Malinowski. The court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which allows compensatory/punitive damages and jury trials for Title VII claims, was not retroactive to Waterson's alleged pre-1991 conduct. However, Waterson could seek compensatory damages and a jury trial under her supplemental New York State Human Rights Law claim, provided her state claim was dismissed for "administrative convenience." The court denied the motion to restrict Malinowski's testimony, finding it relevant to demonstrating a hostile work environment and discriminatory intent. Ultimately, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion regarding damages, allowing compensatory damages only for the state law claim, and denied the motion to restrict Malinowski's testimony.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1991RetroactivityCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesJury TrialState Law ClaimNew York State Human Rights Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yarde v. Good Samaritan Hospital

This decision addresses motions for summary judgment in a case involving claims of racially-motivated discharge, hostile work environment, and unfair representation. Plaintiff, a black nurse named Yarde, was terminated from Good Samaritan Hospital (GSH) for breaching patient confidentiality and failing to attend investigatory meetings. The court dismissed her claims of discriminatory and retaliatory discharge against GSH, as well as all claims against her union (1199 SEIU) and its representative Lorraine Freiberg, finding no sufficient evidence of discrimination, retaliation, or unfair representation. However, the court denied GSH's motion for summary judgment regarding Yarde's hostile work environment claim against GSH and its employees Elizabeth Burton and Linda Bassi, allowing that specific claim to proceed to trial due to unresolved factual disputes concerning racial remarks and differential treatment.

Summary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentUnfair RepresentationPatient Confidentiality BreachWorkplace RetaliationEmployment LawUnion GrievanceNurse TerminationChemical Dependency Unit
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1991

Babcock v. Frank

Babcock, a thirty-seven-year-old woman, sued Postmaster General Anthony Frank under Title VII, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. She claimed her immediate supervisor, Anthony Musso, sexually harassed her after their consensual relationship ended, and that the USPS retaliated against her for filing complaints by denying a promotion and imposing sick leave restrictions. Babcock also cited a hostile work environment due to isolated incidents and eventually resigned, asserting constructive discharge. The court found that Babcock was a victim of sexual harassment but concluded the USPS responded appropriately and promptly to all complaints. It determined there was no discriminatory animus in promotion decisions, the alleged hostile environment incidents were insufficient, and the working conditions did not constitute constructive discharge, leading to the dismissal of her complaint.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIIDiscriminationEmployee DisciplineWorkplace ConductUS Postal ServiceSupervisor Misconduct
References
13
Case No. 12-14-00155-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Brenda Brewer, Deanna Meador, Penny Adams and Sabra Curry v. Lowe's Home Centers Inc.

There are two glaring infirmities in the argument presented by Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (“Lowe’s”) in its brief to this Court. First, Lowe’s misunderstands or misapplies the standard of review for a directed verdict, arguing how evidence 'weighs' in its favor, while the Court's task is to determine if there is at least a scintilla of evidence to support the Cont’l Coffee factors. Second, Lowe's fails to distinguish Echostar Satellite, L.L.C. v. Aguilar, a highly relevant case where the court found sufficient evidence of retaliatory motive when a company deviated from its policies by forcing an employee with workers' compensation claims to work against restrictions or be fired, and failing to provide written notice of leave expiration. The appellants argue that similar deviations and negative attitudes from Lowe's management, including forcing employees to work against light duty restrictions and placing them on unauthorized 'personal leave' without their knowledge, demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the stated reason for termination was a false pretext. Appellants assert that the directed verdict was error and the judgment should be reversed and remanded for a full trial.

Workers' CompensationRetaliationDirected VerdictStandard of ReviewCircumstantial EvidenceCont'l Coffee FactorsLight DutyLeave of Absence PolicyPretextTexas Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2007

Mattison v. Potter

Plaintiff Joy L. Mattison, an African-American female, sued her employer, the United States Postal Service, and its Postmaster General, John E. Potter, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. Mattison claimed she experienced a hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation due to race, sex, and disability, stemming from alleged harassment by co-workers and supervisors after she reported an overtime issue. She experienced anxiety/depression and requested reasonable accommodation to avoid her original work unit. After various internal processes and EEOC complaints, the defendant moved for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment, finding that several claims were abandoned and that Mattison failed to present sufficient evidence for a racially or sexually hostile work environment. Furthermore, the court determined her depressive disorder did not 'substantially limit' a major life activity under the Rehabilitation Act, as her work restriction was specific to one unit rather than a broad class of jobs. The Chief Judge adopted the recommendation, granting summary judgment to the defendants and closing the case.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRehabilitation ActHostile Work EnvironmentDisparate TreatmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentFederal CourtDisability DiscriminationDepressive Disorder
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1978

Claim of Berkowitz v. New York State Labor Relations Board

The claimant, a clerk for the New York State Labor Relations Board, sustained an injury on May 4, 1977, after slipping and falling in the World Trade Center Concourse while taking letters to a mailbox. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that this accident occurred within the environs of employment, thereby arising out of and in the course of employment. This decision was supported by substantial evidence upon appeal and was subsequently affirmed.

Employment InjurySlip and Fall AccidentWorkplace EnvironmentBoard Decision ReviewAppellate ConcurrenceMay 1977 AccidentAffirmed RulingLabor RelationsWorld Trade Center IncidentIn Course of Employment
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,669 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