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

Nichols v. BDS Landscape Design

Deborah Nichols, injured in a slip and fall in 2005, sought to enforce an oral settlement for a negligence claim against BDS Landscape Design, William Dobson, III, and National Grange Mutual Insurance. Despite reaching an agreement contingent on a workers' compensation lien waiver, National Grange later disputed the settlement and claimed the action was time-barred after Nichols received the necessary consent. Nichols initiated a special proceeding to compel payment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's order, converting the special proceeding into an action, and held that Nichols failed to establish the existence and terms of the settlement agreement as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallNegligenceSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsSpecial ProceedingConversion of ActionWorkers' Compensation LienInsurance Dispute
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beck-Nichols v. Bianco

This opinion addresses three consolidated cases challenging the residency policy of the School District of the City of Niagara Falls, New York. The policy mandated that employees hired or promoted after March 1, 1994, maintain residency within Niagara Falls. Applicants Karri Beck-Nichols, Roxanne Adrian, and Keli-Koran Luchey had their employment terminated for non-compliance with this policy. The court clarified that the residency requirement is an eligibility condition, not subject to typical teacher discipline hearings under Education Law, and found that the notice and opportunity to respond provided satisfied due process. Applying an arbitrary and capricious standard, the court reversed the Appellate Division's decision regarding Beck-Nichols, upholding her termination, and affirmed the Appellate Division's decision upholding Adrian's termination. For Luchey, the case was reversed and remitted to Supreme Court to determine if the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Residency policyMunicipal employeesTermination of employmentDue processArbitrary and capricious standardDomicileNew York StateSchool DistrictTeacher employmentPublic Officers Law
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 1991

In re Nichole B.

This case involves a child protective proceeding under the Family Court Act. The Commissioner of Social Services and the child's Law Guardian appealed an order that allowed Kempleton N., Sr., to return to the family home, despite a prior finding that he had sexually abused the child, Nichole B. The court found that the Family Court's decision to permit his return did not adequately prioritize the child's best interests. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order of disposition, mandating Kempleton N., Sr.'s exclusion from the home for one year and requiring him to undergo therapy. The order was affirmed as modified.

Child Protective ServicesChild Sexual AbuseFamily LawChild WelfareBest Interests of the ChildDispositional OrderFact-FindingAppellate ReviewAbusive ParentTherapy Requirement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nicholls v. Philips Semiconductor Manufacturing

George Nicholls (Plaintiff), a 59-year-old engineer, sued Philips Semiconductor Manufacturing (PSM), Philips Electronics North America (PENA), and NXP Semiconductors (NXP) (Defendants) for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Nicholls alleged he was constructively discharged through unfairly negative performance evaluations, changed job responsibilities, a "bottom" ranking, and unreasonable deadlines, forcing him to accept a Voluntary Reduction in Force (VRIF). The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing their actions were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons, including the need for a reduction in force due to overstaffing and financial targets. The Court found that Nicholls failed to establish a prima facie case of constructive discharge, noting that dissatisfaction with assignments or unfair criticism does not constitute constructive discharge. Furthermore, the Court dismissed Nicholls' statistical evidence of age discrimination as flawed and insufficient, ultimately granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentConstructive DischargeReduction in ForcePerformance EvaluationStatistical ProofPretextMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1993

Nichols v. Deer Run Investors, L.P.

Joel E. Nichols, a carpenter, sustained injuries after falling from an icy plank over an excavated ditch at a construction site owned by Deer Run Investors, L.P. Nichols sued the owners alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241-a, and 241(6). Defendants filed a third-party action against MCK Building Associates, Inc., Nichols' employer, for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted Nichols partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied defendants' cross-motions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the incident involved an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240(1) and that factual issues precluded dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) and indemnification claims. The court also agreed that Labor Law § 241-a was inapplicable.

Construction AccidentLabor LawStatutory LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkplace SafetyElevation RiskAppellate ReviewConstruction Site InjuryScaffolding Safety
References
12
Case No. ADJ8241877
Regular
May 02, 2014

CONNA NICHOLS, DONNA NICHOLS, DONNA M. NICHOLS vs. EARLY LEARNING INSTITUTE, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY CO.

This case concerns a Petition for Removal denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The applicant, Donna Nichols, sought removal of an order compelling her deposition, alleging defects and medical inability to attend. The WCAB adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report, which found the petition lacked merit. The WCJ reasoned that the deposition order was not a "walk-through" petition and that the applicant's medical evidence was insufficient to justify further delay.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 5313Smales v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8241877depositionPetition to Compel Attendance at DepositionDeclaration of Readiness to Proceedwalk-through petition
References
1
Case No. ADJ4250013
Regular
Mar 01, 2018

LYNELLIA NICHOLS vs. CAPITOL FACTORS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a clerical error in the date of service for a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board's January 8, 2017 decision was mistakenly served, when the correct service date should have been January 8, 2018. The Board is correcting this error without further proceedings, as permitted by statute. The corrected decision will reflect the amended service date of January 8, 2018.

Clerical Error CorrectionDate of ServiceOpinion and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSupplemental ProceedingsAmended Date of ServiceADJ4250013LAO 0725006Capitol Factors
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1987

Lunde v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc.

In this personal injury action, the plaintiff, an employee of Nichols Yacht Yard Inc., suffered a hand injury while attempting to fix a malfunctioning boat lift. The defendant, also located on the premises, had employees instruct the plaintiff, who was not part of the trained 'yard crew,' to launch a boat using a 'big lift' when no trained personnel were available. The lift malfunctioned due to a displaced cable, and as the plaintiff attempted to correct it per defendant's instructions, his hand was pulled into a pulley. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, found the defendant 95% at fault, based on a jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the defendant, as an owner or general contractor, owed a duty to provide a safe workplace under Labor Law §200, and that the jury's finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySafe Workplace DutyLabor Law §200Jury VerdictAppellate ReviewComparative NegligenceBoat Lift AccidentEmployer LiabilityExpert Witness Testimony
References
15
Case No. ADJ13768010
Regular
May 06, 2025

ROBERT NICHOLS vs. COMCAST, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Robert Nichols, the applicant, sustained injuries while employed by Comcast. A petition for reconsideration was filed regarding whether the medical treatment received by the applicant qualified as pre-admission or emergency services, and the defendant's alleged failure to conduct a second bill review. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, concurring with the WCJ's report that the lien claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the treatment fell under pre-admission or emergency status. The Board also noted that the issue concerning the defendant's non-response to the second bill review was not a contested matter at the trial.

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONLABOR CODE SECTION 5909ELECTRONIC ADJUDICATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EAMS)TRANSMISSION DATEREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONLIEN CLAIMANTPRETREATMENT SERVICESEMERGENCY SERVICESMEDICARE PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEMSECOND BILL REVIEW
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 24 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