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

In re the Arbitration between North Country Community College Ass'n & North Country Community College

Petitioner Michael Leahy, a tenured accounting professor, was terminated by North Country Community College for misconduct involving a heated verbal exchange with his supervisor. Leahy and his union, the North Country Community College Association of Professionals, filed a grievance that proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator found serious misconduct but modified the penalty to a 15-month suspension without pay, along with anger management counseling, rather than termination. Petitioners sought to confirm the arbitration award, while respondents cross-moved to vacate it. The Supreme Court confirmed the award, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in modifying the penalty and that the award was not irrational or violative of strong public policy.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationEmployee TerminationWorkplace MisconductCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrator AuthorityPublic Policy ChallengePenalty ModificationAnger ManagementJudicial Review of ArbitrationDisciplinary Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merced Irrigation District v. Barclays Bank PLC

Merced Irrigation District sued Barclays Bank PLC, alleging market manipulation in electricity index prices, violating federal antitrust laws (Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and New York's unjust enrichment law. Barclays moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found Merced had standing and that fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations. The motion was granted for the Section 1 Sherman Act claim due to a lack of alleged concerted action, and for the unjust enrichment claim due to the absence of a direct relationship between the parties. However, the motion was denied for the Section 2 Sherman Act monopolization claim and the UCL claim, allowing those to proceed. Merced was given leave to amend the dismissed claims.

Antitrust LawMarket ManipulationElectricity MarketsSherman Act Section 1Sherman Act Section 2California Unfair Competition LawUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFraudulent Concealment
References
85
Case No. ADJ10121570
Regular
Oct 28, 2016

Tracy Baker vs. Foothill De Anza Community College District

In Case No. ADJ10121570, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision regarding applicant Tracy Baker and defendant Foothill De Anza Community College District. The WCAB found reconsideration necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues involved. This grant suspends any action by the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) on the matter. All subsequent filings related to the reconsideration petition must be submitted directly to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to the district office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsCommissioners of the Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Community College v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Suffolk County Community College to review a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division had previously found the college guilty of unlawful racially discriminatory practices and retaliation against an employee, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages. The Division of Human Rights cross-petitioned to enforce this determination. Following a reversal and remittal by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division reviewed the matter. The court denied the branch of the cross-petition seeking to enforce the $50,000 compensatory damages award, finding it excessive due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration, severity, or consequences of the complainant's mental anguish related to racial discrimination. The determination was otherwise confirmed, and the case was remitted to the New York State Division of Human Rights for a new award of compensatory damages not exceeding $5,000.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationCompensatory DamagesExcessive DamagesMental AnguishAdministrative Law ReviewHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewRemittalSufficiency of Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1996

Sormani v. Orange County Community College

The plaintiff, a student and part-time employee at Orange County Community College, filed an action seeking damages for negligence and sex discrimination, alleging sexual harassment by a coach. The Supreme Court partially denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court ruled that the negligence claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law as the plaintiff's exclusive remedy, rejecting the dual-capacity doctrine. The sex discrimination claim was also dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to timely inform the employer of the conduct and lack of evidence demonstrating employer acquiescence or a supervisory relationship.

NegligenceSex DiscriminationSexual HarassmentSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyDual-Capacity DoctrineExecutive Law 296Title VII Civil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2017

Musante v. Mohawk Valley Community College

Robert Musante, a former faculty member, filed a civil rights lawsuit against Mohawk Valley Community College (MVCC) alleging age and gender discrimination, retaliation, and defamation following his termination. MVCC terminated Musante after an investigation into student complaints of classroom misconduct, including sexually explicit stories and inappropriate language. Musante disputes the allegations, claiming the complaints were from disgruntled students and that the investigation was biased, driven by an HR director's disapproval of his teaching style and perceived animus against older male professors. He also claims retaliation for lodging a discrimination complaint and for defamatory statements made by an MVCC employee that hindered his job search. The court denied MVCC's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding discrimination, retaliation, and defamation, and ordered the claims to proceed to trial.

Age DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimDefamation ClaimSummary Judgment MotionFaculty TerminationClassroom MisconductStudent ComplaintsEmployment DiscriminationCivil Rights Litigation
References
28
Case No. ADJ7723923
Regular
Mar 12, 2013

ANGELICA HILL vs. SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves Angelica Hill versus Southwestern Community College District. The Board has dismissed both parties' Petitions for Reconsideration. The dismissal is based on the finding that the petitions were untimely and unverified, as detailed in the adopted reports of the workers' compensation administrative law judge.

Petitions for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimelyUnverifiedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJReport and RecommendationsAngelica HillSouthwestern Community College DistrictPermissibly Self-Insured
References
0
Case No. ADJ6937463
Regular
Jan 16, 2015

DELIA MELENDEZ vs. VICTOR VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, PIPS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered two decisions regarding applicant Delia Melendez's claims against Victor Valley Community College District. The WCAB rescinded the Findings and Order in Case No. ADJ6937463 to correctly identify the cumulative injury period and injured body parts, finding applicant sustained industrial injury to her psyche from January 5, 2009, through July 20, 2009. However, the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's determination that this psychiatric injury claim is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(h) because it was substantially caused by a lawful, good-faith personnel action. Consequently, the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's denial of benefits for all alleged injuries in both cases.

AOE/COEpsychiatric injurycumulative traumaLabor Code section 3208.3(h)personnel actionreconsiderationrescindedaffirmedmedical treatmenttemporary disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ3730512 (FRE 0210105)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Roy Dettling vs. MERCED COMMUNITY COLLEGE, JT2 INTEGRATED SAN RAMON

In *Dettling v. Merced Community College*, the Appeals Board rescinded a prior award of retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA). The Board found that the repeal of Labor Code § 139.5 on January 1, 2009, terminated all pending and non-final vocational rehabilitation claims. Because the applicant's VRMA award was not final before the repeal, his right to these benefits was extinguished. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings not involving VRMA.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational RehabilitationLabor Code § 139.5Qualified Injured WorkerVRMAWeiner v. Ralphs CompanyRepealNon-finalVested Rights
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04342 [151 AD3d 1154]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

Claim of Pereira-Jersey v. Rockland Community College

Renee Pereira-Jersey, a purchasing agent, filed for workers' compensation benefits in February 2008 due to conditions like breathing difficulties and headaches resulting from workplace mold exposure. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established a work-related injury, later amending the claim to include a consequential cognitive adjustment disorder and awarding reduced earnings for a three-day work week, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer, Rockland Community College, repeatedly challenged further reduced earnings awards. However, the WCLJ and Board found substantial evidence supporting claimant's causally-related disability preventing full-time work. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its resolution of conflicting medical evidence and finding no abuse of discretion in the Board not considering an issue not raised before the WCLJ.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMold Exposure InjuryReduced EarningsCognitive ImpairmentOccupational AsthmaChronic SinusitisToxic EncephalopathyAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,497 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