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
Mar 06, 2012

Claim of Cook v. East Greenbush Police Department

The claimant, a patrol officer for the East Greenbush Police Department, filed for workers' compensation benefits after being diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder following a traumatic incident in January 2009 involving an armed suspect. His claim was denied by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, who found that the events giving rise to his injury were part of his job responsibilities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that for a mental injury from work-related stress to be compensable, the stress must exceed that normally encountered in the work environment. The court concluded that while the specific encounter was "extraordinary," the possibility of needing deadly force is an inherent part of a police officer's regular duties, regardless of department size. Therefore, the Board's decision to deny benefits was upheld.

Posttraumatic Stress DisorderPTSDMental InjuryWork-Related StressPolice OfficerAccidental InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsScope of EmploymentNormal Work EnvironmentDeadly Force
References
4
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roman v. New York City Police Department

The petitioner's employment was terminated by the New York City Police Department due to unexcused absence, intoxication, and possession of cocaine. Despite promising to report to duty, the petitioner never appeared. Police, entering her apartment under emergency circumstances, found her unconscious and intoxicated, with cocaine residue visible. Subsequent urine tests were positive for cocaine. The court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petitioner's request, and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding, citing substantial evidence to support the termination.

employment terminationpolice misconductCPLR Article 78emergency doctrinewarrantless entrydrug possessionpublic employee disciplinesubstantial evidenceadministrative law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1992

Loper v. New York City Police Department

Plaintiffs Jennifer Loper and William Kaye, representing a class, sought summary judgment against the New York City Police Department and Commissioner Lee Brown, aiming to declare New York State Penal Law § 240.35(1), which criminalizes loitering for begging, unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued their provided arrest reports, detailing over 1,200 arrests under the statute, demonstrated ongoing constitutional violations. However, the defendants contended these reports were subject to multiple interpretations, with many charges being erroneously listed or pertaining to other offenses like prostitution or drug activity, thereby presenting a genuine issue of material fact regarding their enforcement scheme. The court further dismissed the plaintiffs' argument that the mere enactment of an unconstitutional statute warrants relief without a proven, credible threat of enforcement. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied, with leave for the plaintiffs to renew it following additional discovery.

Constitutional LawSummary JudgmentLoitering StatutePenal LawFirst AmendmentBeggingClass ActionStatutory ChallengePolice EnforcementJudicial Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Claim of Jimerson v. New York City Police Department

Claimant, a senior administrative aide, applied for workers' compensation benefits due to hand, neck, and back injuries from repetitive movements while employed by the New York City Police Department. A work-related injury was established, and she received benefits for intermittent lost time. Claimant ceased working in March 2005, asserting her injuries prevented her from performing duties. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined she voluntarily removed herself from the labor market, denying further benefits, though the Board remitted for further development on intermittent lost time awards. The appellate court reversed the Board's determination regarding voluntary withdrawal, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. Medical reports from treating physicians, Marc Levinson and Dwiref Mehta, indicated her disability contributed to her decision to stop working. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketRepetitive Movement InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeNeck and Back InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityTreating Physician ReportMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence ReviewBoard Decision Reversed
References
5
Case No. 90 Civ. 7546 (RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 1992

Loper v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPT.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Loper and William Kaye, on behalf of themselves and a class, moved for summary judgment against the New York City Police Department and its Commissioner. They sought a declaration that New York State Penal Law § 240.35(1), pertaining to loitering for begging, is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs submitted arrest reports to demonstrate ongoing unconstitutional injuries. Defendants countered that the statute was frequently misapplied, with many arrests mistakenly categorized under the loitering statute but actually involving other offenses like prostitution or drug activity. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion, citing that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendants' enforcement scheme, making summary judgment inappropriate. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the mere enactment of an unconstitutional statute warrants relief, emphasizing the necessity of a credible threat of enforcement.

Summary JudgmentFirst AmendmentLoitering StatuteBegging RightsConstitutional ChallengeNew York Penal LawPolice EnforcementClass ActionJudicial ReviewArrest Reports
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Young v. Town of Fallsburg Police Department

Plaintiff William D. Young, a part-time Afro-American police officer, sued the Town of Fallsburg Police Department for racial discrimination under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Young alleged a pattern of discriminatory incidents by Police Chief Robinson and other officers, including unfair shift assignments, denial of training, ignored harassment complaints, and an allegedly pretextual termination. The defendant moved to dismiss, challenging the Police Department's status as an employer, the timeliness of Young's claims, and the validity of compensatory damages and pendent jurisdiction. The court denied all of the defendant's motions, finding the Police Department to be a proper employer and the 'continuing violation' doctrine applicable to Young's claims. Additionally, the court upheld the possibility of compensatory damages under state law and affirmed its exercise of pendent jurisdiction over the state claims.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIIPolice DepartmentContinuing Violation DoctrineMotion to DismissPendent JurisdictionNew York Human Rights LawEmployer DefinitionTimeliness of Claims
References
15
Case No. 526796
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2019

Matter of Barker v. New York City Police Dept.

Claimant Nielda Barker, an evidence property control specialist for the New York City Police Department for 29 years, filed a workers' compensation claim in November 2016 for injuries to her shoulders, bicep, elbow, wrist, and forearm. She attributed these injuries to repetitive overhead activities and lifting heavy objects. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied her claim, finding she did not sustain an occupational disease or a repetitive stress accidental injury. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this determination, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department. The court found that neither the claimant's testimony nor the medical evidence sufficiently established a recognizable link between her injuries and a distinctive feature of her work, or that the conditions resulted from unusual environmental circumstances.

Occupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsRepetitive Stress InjuryShoulder InjuriesEvidence Property Control SpecialistPolice DepartmentSubstantial EvidenceCausally-RelatedMedical Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 1980

In re the Claim of Bohunicky v. City of Binghamton-Police Department

The claimant, a police officer for the City of Binghamton, had a history of hypertension and diabetes. He sustained a myocardial infarction while at work in May 1977. Conflicting medical evidence was presented regarding whether his employment stress caused the infarction or if it was due to pre-existing conditions. The Workers' Compensation Board found that the infarction was not work-related. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support its conclusion.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionHypertensionDiabetesEmployment StressPre-existing ConditionSubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceAppeal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Showing 1-10 of 5,070 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