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. ADJ2468227 (RIV 0049790)
Regular
Jul 09, 2012

LESLIE GRAHAM vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR MEN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an Arbitrator's Findings and Award in the case of Leslie Graham versus the State of California, Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Both the applicant and defendant sought reconsideration. The WCAB granted this to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications regarding this matter must be filed in writing with the WCAB Commissioners' office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLeslie GrahamDepartment of Corrections and RehabilitationCalifornia Institution for Menlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ2468227RIV 0049790Petition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's Findings and Award
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07501
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2017

Graham v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Richard Graham, a nurse with Tourette's syndrome and spinal stenosis, sued the New York State Office of Mental Health and others for disability discrimination and retaliation after his probationary employment was terminated. Graham alleged refusal of reasonable accommodation for his disabilities during a job transfer and retaliation for requesting accommodations. The defendants argued that Graham failed to cooperate in the interactive accommodation process and was legitimately terminated for falsifying his employment application regarding prior state employment. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that there was no refusal of reasonable accommodation and that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds.

Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentEmployment LawProbationary EmploymentFalsification of Employment ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LeaveInteractive ProcessHuman Rights Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graham v. City of New York

In this case, Claude Graham sued the City of New York, ACS, Janet Caesar, and Dr. Eileen Treacy, alleging violations of his constitutional rights after being separated from his son due to child abuse allegations. The New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) investigated, and Graham’s son, JGR, initially denied abuse but later claimed his father coached him to lie. A Family Court judge issued temporary orders of protection preventing Graham from seeing JGR, and a forensic psychologist, Dr. Treacy, concluded Graham coached his son. Although the neglect petition against Graham was eventually dismissed with prejudice after almost three years, the damage to his relationship with his son was severe. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no plausible claim that Graham's federal constitutional rights were violated, and dismissed state law claims without prejudice, denying permission to replead.

Child neglectChild abuse allegationsDue ProcessFourth AmendmentMalicious prosecutionEqual ProtectionFamily Court proceedingsTemporary order of protectionParental rightsChild Protective Services (ACS)
References
56
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04906 [186 AD3d 1298]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2020

Aguilar v. Graham Terrace, LLC

The plaintiff, Willan Enrique Macas Aguilar, an employee of subcontractor Atweek, Inc., sustained personal injuries when an unsecured HVAC duct fell on him during demolition work at a renovation site owned by Graham Terrace, LLC, and managed by general contractor Townhouse Builders, Inc. He initiated an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The owner and general contractor filed a third-party claim for contractual indemnification against the subcontractor. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and issued various rulings concerning the indemnification and other Labor Law claims. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order by denying the owner and general contractor's motion for summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim, while affirming the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and the denial of summary judgment to the appellants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

personal injurylabor lawsummary judgmentcontractual indemnificationfalling objectconstruction accidentappellate reviewworker safetypremises liabilityNew York law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graham v. Heckler

Plaintiff Vanetta Graham sought judicial review of a final decision denying her claim for federal disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The District Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by mechanically applying the medical-vocational "grid" rules to determine disability. The court highlighted that exclusive reliance on the grid is inappropriate when a claimant, like Ms. Graham, has significant non-exertional impairments, such as environmental restrictions to dust and fumes. The court reversed the Secretary's decision and remanded the case, instructing the ALJ to make clearer findings regarding the combined effect of all of Ms. Graham's impairments on her residual functional capacity.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityNon-exertional impairmentsExertional limitationsGrid rulesSedentary workRemandJudicial review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Leslie C.

This opinion addresses three child abuse petitions filed against Maria M., the mother of Leslie C. and Ferdinand C., and Dominique P., Leslie's 20-year-old boyfriend. The Commissioner of Social Services alleged sexual abuse of Leslie by Dominique P. with Maria M.'s knowledge, and educational neglect and inadequate supervision of both children by Maria M. The court had previously reserved decision on Maria M.'s motion to dismiss. Following a fact-finding hearing, the court granted Maria M.'s motion to dismiss the child abuse allegations, determining that the Family Court Act does not establish a cause of action for abuse arising from unforced sexual relations between teenage peers leading to pregnancy, especially with an insufficient age discrepancy for liability. However, the court found Maria M. guilty of educational neglect due to her failure to ensure Leslie and Ferdinand's regular school attendance, inferring impairment from their excessive absences, particularly as special education students. A dispositional hearing was scheduled for June 14, 1994.

Child AbuseEducational NeglectFamily LawTeenage PregnancyParental LiabilitySexual MisconductStatutory RapeCompulsory EducationPreponderance of EvidenceChild Welfare Administration
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falbaum v. Pomerantz

Five former managerial employees of Leslie Fay sued four current employees and the company's outside counsel for age discrimination under federal (ADEA), New York State (NYHRL), Pennsylvania (PHRA), and New York City (NYCCRL) laws. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing they are not subject to personal liability under ADEA, NYHRL, and PHRA, and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under PHRA and NYCCRL. The court had previously dismissed legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Leslie Fay's general counsel and outside counsel. The court granted the motion to dismiss claims under ADEA, NYHRL, and PHRA, finding that these statutes generally do not impose personal liability on individual employees, but rather focus on employer liability. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims under the NYCCRL because its plain language explicitly allows for liability against "an employer or an employee or agent thereof", and plaintiffs demonstrated compliance with administrative requirements. Therefore, the case proceeds only on the New York City Civil Rights Law claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawPersonal LiabilityEmployer LiabilityADEANYHRLPHRANYCCRLRespondeat SuperiorMotion to Dismiss
References
42
Case No. ADJ6706991
Regular
Sep 16, 2011

MICHAEL GRAHAM vs. PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Applicant Michael Graham sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that awarded a 24% permanent disability rating for a back injury sustained on October 3, 2008. Graham argued for a higher rating based on medical reports from Dr. Chen and Dr. Roth. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report. The Board also addressed a procedural issue regarding the timeliness of its review, finding its decision to be timely due to the date of actual notice of the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianLabor Code § 5909Due ProcessActual Notice
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01172 [214 AD3d 693]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2023

Balfe v. Graham

Thomas Balfe sustained personal injuries in October 2011 while installing ductwork in a basement, allegedly stepping into an uncovered hole. He initiated legal action against the general contractor, Old World Quality Corp., asserting claims including a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted Old World's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. Balfe subsequently appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's ruling, determining that the plaintiff's accident did not constitute an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentGeneral ContractorSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardNondelegable DutyAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyDuctwork InstallationEjector Pump Hole
References
9
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02734 [138 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2016

Matter of Lesli R. (Luis R.)

The Family Court's order of disposition, which found that the respondent sexually abused his stepdaughters and derivatively abused his five biological children, was unanimously affirmed. The record supported the court's determination that the respondent was legally responsible for the children and that there was a preponderance of evidence of sexual abuse. The stepdaughters' out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by the respondent's own statements. The court also found that the respondent derivatively abused his own children and properly exercised its discretion in quashing a subpoena to compel one of the stepdaughters to testify due to potential psychological harm.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseDerivative AbuseFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewPreponderance of EvidenceOut-of-court StatementsCorroborationParental ObligationsSubpoena Quash
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 86 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