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
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. 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. 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
Mar 24, 1998

Nicholson v. Mohawk Valley Community College

A secretary at Mohawk Valley Community College developed symptoms consistent with "sick building syndrome" after relocating to a newly renovated building in 1991, leading her to file a workers' compensation claim in 1993. Despite her symptoms subsiding after relocation and initial air quality tests being normal, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled in her favor. However, this decision was subsequently reversed by a Board panel following a full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the panel's reversal, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of no causal connection between the claimant's symptoms and her employment, as physicians could not identify specific workplace-exclusive allergens.

Workers' CompensationSick Building SyndromeOccupational DiseaseCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionAir QualityEnvironmental AllergensEmployment Link
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Megyesi v. County of Rensselaer

Petitioner Pellegrino DiCianni, a maintenance worker at Hudson Valley Community College, was suspended for 15 days without pay after being found guilty of sleeping on the job during assigned work hours. DiCianni challenged this determination and penalty through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court found substantial evidence supported the finding that DiCianni was sleeping when he should have been on duty, rejecting his arguments regarding rest periods. Despite his 33-year unblemished record, the court confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition, concluding that the 15-day suspension was not disproportionate to the misconduct.

Public EmploymentMisconductSleeping on the JobDisciplinary ActionSuspensionJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawCredibility DeterminationPenalty DisproportionDue Process
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1984

Barnhardt v. Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

The plaintiff, injured in May 1978 during maintenance work, was denied workers' compensation due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Subsequently, he sought reimbursement for medical expenses from the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds (Benefit Funds) through a union insurance policy. Continental Assurance Company (Continental), Benefit Funds' insurer, rejected the claim, citing an employment-related injury exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff then initiated an action against Benefit Funds, which in turn filed a third-party action against Continental seeking indemnification. Continental's motion for summary judgment, asserting the exclusion, was denied by the County Court. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that the exclusionary language was ambiguous and applied only in cases where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, a fact still to be determined.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionContractual AmbiguityGroup Health InsuranceMedical Expense ReimbursementThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,756 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