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. ADJ6502736
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

JUAN BARCENAS vs. THE BEST MASTER ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, New Age Imaging Copy Service

This order imposes a $500.00 sanction against lien claimant New Age Imaging Copy Service for filing a frivolous petition for reconsideration without justification. The Board previously provided notice of its intent to sanction and allowed an opportunity to object, which the lien claimant failed to do. The sanction is for violating Labor Code section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2) regarding frivolous filings. Payment is due within twenty days to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for transmittal to the General Fund.

Frivolous petitionSanctionLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2)Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationNotice of intentionGood causeOpinion and Order Dismissing Petition for ReconsiderationGranting Removal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stratton v. DEPARTMENT FOR AGING CITY OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff Joyce Stratton sued the New York City Department for the Aging (DFTA) and Commissioner Prema Mathai-Davis for age discrimination and retaliation after her termination at age 61 and failure to be rehired. A jury found for Stratton, awarding $500,000 in damages, determining age was a factor and the non-rehire was retaliatory and willful. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, erroneous admission of statistical evidence, and excessive damages. Plaintiff cross-moved for front pay and restoration of benefits. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial regarding statistical evidence. The motion for a new trial due to excessive damages was denied on condition that plaintiff accept a remittitur reducing the award from $500,000 to $373,886.23. Plaintiff's motion for front pay and benefits, totaling $378,000, was granted.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawJury VerdictPost-trial MotionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialRemittiturFront PayBack Pay
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zinaman v. USTS New York, Inc.

Lawrence M. Zinaman sued USTS New York, Inc. and US-Travel Systems, Inc. for breach of contract, fraud, and age discrimination under the ADEA and New York's Human Rights Law. Defendants moved to dismiss several claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against US-Travel Systems, Inc., finding insufficient pleading for an 'alter ego' theory. The fraud claim against USTS New York, Inc. was also dismissed, as it merely restated the breach of contract claim. However, the court denied the dismissal of Zinaman's state common law contract claims and state age discrimination claims against USTS. The court also denied the defendants' motion to strike portions of the complaint. Zinaman was directed to amend his complaint regarding the state age discrimination claim.

Age DiscriminationBreach of ContractFraudEmployment AgreementAlter Ego TheoryPendent JurisdictionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(f)ADEA
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Okeke v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital

Plaintiffs Ifeanyichukwu E. Okeke, Jerry Baglione, Iqbal Bajwa, Adel Mahmoud, Naeem U. Qureshi, and Abel De La Trinidad sued The New York and Presbyterian Hospital for age discrimination and hostile work environment under federal, state, and city laws. A jury found the Hospital liable on NYCHRL claims for age-related termination, denial of training, and hostile work environment, but not under federal and state law. The Hospital moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. The Court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, granted in part and denied in part the motion for a new trial (specifically granting a new trial on the NYCHRL termination claims), and denied the motion for remittitur as moot. The hostile work environment claim under NYCHRL was sustained.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentNYCHRLADEAMixed-Motive DiscriminationJury VerdictRule 50 MotionRule 59 MotionRemittiturDenial of Training
References
32
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06635
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2017

Hamburg v. New York University School of Medicine

Plaintiff, Carole Hamburg, M.D., sued New York University School of Medicine for age discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law and for breach of contract after her employment was not renewed. The Supreme Court granted NYU summary judgment on the age discrimination claim but denied it for the breach of contract claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of the age discrimination claim, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent in NYU's restructuring and phase-out of the general radiology section. The court further modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to NYU on the breach of contract claim, ruling that Dr. Hamburg was not contractually entitled to a year's notice of non-renewal as her non-tenure-eligible position automatically terminated unless renewed. Consequently, the entire complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ContractFaculty EmploymentUniversity AdministrationDepartment RestructuringSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationTenure-EligibleNon-Tenure Track
References
19
Case No. ADJ6918227
Regular
Feb 14, 2012

GERARDO LINARES vs. PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed New Age Imaging's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a preliminary notice, not a final order. The petition was also dismissed for being impermissibly skeletal and unverified. The Board is initiating sanctions against New Age Imaging and its representative for wasting Board resources with this frivolous filing. New Age Imaging and its representative have 15 days to show good cause why $500 in sanctions should not be imposed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionLabor Code § 5813SanctionsBad Faith ActionsFrivolous Tactics
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prats v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Plaintiff, an assistant mechanic for AWL Industries, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while inspecting an air-conditioning unit at the World Trade Center, a project contracted by defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The District Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leading to a certified question to the Court of Appeals regarding whether inspections of construction work fall under the statute's purview. The Court, distinguishing the case from Martinez v City of New York, held in the affirmative, emphasizing that the plaintiff's inspection was integral to and contemporaneous with broader building alteration work, not mere routine maintenance. The decision affirmed that such activities, performed by a mechanic under a construction contract, are protected under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240(1)Ladder AccidentConstruction WorkBuilding AlterationWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationCertified QuestionNew York Court of AppealsInspection ActivitySummary Judgment Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

SOMMERSETT v. City of New York

Joy Eyvonne Sommersett, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an action against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Probation, alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA. She claimed failure to promote, unequal employment terms, retaliation, and harassment through unfair evaluations. Sommersett requested the court to appoint counsel to assist her. The court reviewed her claims and found them unlikely to be of substance, noting that alleged discriminatory conduct was either not severe enough, not timely raised, or lacked an inference of discrimination. Therefore, the court denied Sommersett's request for appointed counsel.

DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARace DiscriminationAge DiscriminationFailure to PromoteRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentMotion for CounselPro Se Litigant
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtin v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JER.

The plaintiff, Curtin, filed an action in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, alleging personal injuries due to negligence by Delta Airlines, Inc. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey during an emergency evacuation. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction based on the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAA) and its implicit preemption of state law aviation safety standards. Curtin moved to remand the case, arguing that federal question or diversity jurisdiction was lacking and the FAA did not preempt state negligence claims. The court denied Curtin's motion, concluding that the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme for aviation safety, the purpose of the FAA, and its legislative history indicate that the standard of care is a matter of federal law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction.

Federal Aviation ActPreemptionAviation SafetyState Law NegligenceFederal Question JurisdictionRemovalEmergency EvacuationAirline Deregulation ActSaving ClauseField Preemption
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 9,510 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