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. ADJ3434154
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

GARY ZIMMERMAN vs. LEPRINO FOODS, INC., MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Leprino Foods violated Labor Code section 132a by failing to place the applicant on a required union leave of absence. While the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's termination was lawful based on a doctor's work restrictions, they awarded a 50% increase in compensation up to $10,000, plus costs, due to the Section 132a violation. However, the Board denied back pay, agreeing with the WCJ that lost wages were not caused by the employer's contract violation but by the lawful termination and the applicant's insufficient mitigation efforts. A dissenting commissioner argued for back pay, citing the discriminatory nature of the termination during the mandated leave and the lack of evidence for the WCJ's findings on misleading doctors and failed mitigation.

Labor Code section 132aLeprino FoodsMatrix Absence Management CompanyGary ZimmermanBrian Belanger D.C.permanent and stationary reportunion grievanceArbitratorback payreinstatement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Groth v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

This legal motion pertained to a request for leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order. The Appellate Division had previously denied reargument in the underlying case. The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, reasoning that the Appellate Division's order did not constitute a final determination as defined by the Constitution. Separate from this, any other aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were also denied.

References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobsen v. New York State Department of Labor

Petitioner, a senior stenographer for the Department of Labor, was terminated after cumulative absences due to a work-related injury exceeded one year, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The Department calculated absences including non-workdays. Petitioner challenged the calculation and argued improper termination due to lack of notice regarding the concurrent running of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. The court found respondent's method of calculating Civil Service Law § 71 leave rational. However, it determined that the Department of Labor failed to provide proper notice that petitioner's FMLA leave would run concurrently with her workers' compensation leave. Consequently, the court annulled the termination, granted the petition for reinstatement with back pay and benefits, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service LawFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Cumulative AbsencesTermination of EmploymentMedical DisabilityNotice RequirementsReinstatementBack Pay and BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Zachari

A motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The decision included an award of $10 costs. Justices Breitel, Rabin, Valente, Eager, and Steuer concurred with the decision.

Motion to ReargueLeave to AppealCourt of AppealsCosts AwardedJudicial Concurrence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duralite Co. v. Local 222, Metal, Plastics, Miscellaneous Sales, Novelty and Production Workers

A motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, with an imposition of $10 costs. The decision was concurred by Justice Presiding Breitel, along with Justices Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente, and McNally.

Motion to ReargueLeave to AppealCourt of AppealsCosts AwardedConcurring JusticesAppellate DivisionDenial of Motion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bellido-Sullivan v. American International Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Marie Bellido-Sullivan filed a lawsuit against American International Group, Inc. (AIG) in New York state court, alleging employment discrimination and breach of employment manual, including a cause of action related to termination for taking leaves of absence. AIG removed the case to federal court, arguing that the leave of absence claim could only exist under the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), thus presenting a federal question. Sullivan moved to remand the case back to state court and sought recovery of costs and attorney's fees. The District Court, presided over by Judge ROBERT L. CARTER, found that the FMLA does not completely preempt state law, nor is it a necessary and central element of Sullivan's state law claim. The court determined that Sullivan's claim, though vague, could potentially succeed under New York Human Rights Law. Consequently, the court granted Sullivan's motion to remand the case to New York state court but denied her motion for costs and fees, acknowledging the complexity of the artful pleading doctrine.

Remand motionFederal jurisdictionEmployment discriminationFMLA preemptionArtful pleading doctrineState law claimsWrongful terminationCosts and feesJudicial discretionNew York Human Rights Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pegoraro v. Tessy Plastics Corp.

The motion, seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order denying reargument or, alternatively, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, was dismissed because the order does not constitute a final determination of the proceeding as defined by the Constitution. All other aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionFinality of OrderCourt of AppealsReargumentConstitutional Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of DeRosa v. Evans Plumbing & Heating Co.

This legal text describes a motion wherein the movants sought leave to appeal an Appellate Division order related to a Workers' Compensation proceeding. The motion was dismissed because the movants had already pursued leave to appeal the same Appellate Division order in the Court of Appeals, as indicated by a prior ruling. Additionally, any other aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied. The court cited *Selinger v Selinger* as a precedent for its decision to dismiss the current application for leave to appeal.

Workers' CompensationLeave to AppealAppellate DivisionCourt of AppealsMotion DismissedMotion DeniedPrior ApplicationJudicial PrecedentProcedural Ruling
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,764 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