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

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobsen v. New York State Department of Labor

Petitioner, a senior stenographer for the Department of Labor, was terminated after cumulative absences due to a work-related injury exceeded one year, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The Department calculated absences including non-workdays. Petitioner challenged the calculation and argued improper termination due to lack of notice regarding the concurrent running of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. The court found respondent's method of calculating Civil Service Law § 71 leave rational. However, it determined that the Department of Labor failed to provide proper notice that petitioner's FMLA leave would run concurrently with her workers' compensation leave. Consequently, the court annulled the termination, granted the petition for reinstatement with back pay and benefits, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service LawFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Cumulative AbsencesTermination of EmploymentMedical DisabilityNotice RequirementsReinstatementBack Pay and BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ8394203
Regular
Oct 08, 2013

Anthony Miranda vs. Fresno Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Anthony Miranda's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision that his injury claim was barred under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). Miranda failed to prove any of the statutory exceptions, specifically that his employer had notice of the injury before his termination notice, that his pre-termination medical records documented the injury, or that the injury occurred after his termination notice. The Board found that Miranda admitted he did not report the injury until after his termination and that no medical evidence existed prior to his termination notice. Therefore, his claim for the May 9, 2012, bus accident injury was denied.

Labor Code 3600(a)(10)Petition for ReconsiderationDenial of ReconsiderationTimeliness of ClaimNotice of TerminationPre-Termination InjuryMedical RecordsSurveillance VideoIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ7257085
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

RAMON MACIAS vs. SOUTHWIRE CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns an applicant claiming back, hip, and ankle injury from May 1, 2009, who reported it during an exit interview on March 22, 2010, after receiving notice of termination. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the trial judge's findings based on parties' stipulations that the injury was reported post-termination without notice to the employer beforehand. The Board found that Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) bars claims filed after notice of termination unless specific exceptions apply, and the applicant's reported injury date predates termination notice. The issue of potential exceptions under section 3600(a)(10) remains reserved for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimExit interviewActual notice of terminationStipulationsWCABReconsideration deniedPreponderance of evidenceExceptions to denialCompensable injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2001

Claim of Oberson v. Bureau of Ferry Aviation & Transportation

The claimant was terminated from his employment as a marine oiler after a physical altercation with his supervisor in January 1993. He sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming a compensable psychological injury from the altercation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim due to the claimant's failure to timely notify the employer of his injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. Although the employer had actual knowledge of the altercation and termination, there was no indication they had actual knowledge of a psychological injury stemming from the altercation until 1999, approximately six years later. The Board's determination that the employer did not have timely notice and was prejudiced by the delay was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation NoticePsychological Injury ClaimTimeliness of NoticeEmployer PrejudiceActual KnowledgeWorkplace AltercationEmployment TerminationWorkers' Compensation Board AffirmationAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonard v. Regan

The petitioner, a school crossing guard, was injured and sought disability retirement benefits, which the Comptroller denied as untimely, interpreting 'paid on the payroll' strictly as payment for services rendered. Her employment was also terminated by Nassau County without a prior hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed her CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging both determinations. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, upholding the Comptroller's interpretation as rational and finding that the petitioner's right to apply for benefits had expired years before her termination, thus precluding any deprivation of that right by the county's actions. The court also affirmed the lower court's discretion in allowing late service of an appeal notice on Nassau County.

Disability RetirementTimelinessPayroll DefinitionWorkers' CompensationEmployment TerminationCPLR Article 78Appellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationGovernment Agency DiscretionNassau County
References
6
Case No. ADJ4014154 (ANA 0408143)
Regular
Jun 19, 2009

JUAN LOPEZ vs. LIBERTY GLASS FABRICATORS, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a worker claiming a back injury on October 1, 2007, but reporting it on October 5, 2007, the same day his employment was terminated. The employer contends the claim is barred under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination claim, arguing the worker's notice of injury was not provided prior to termination. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversed the initial award, and found the claim non-compensable, ruling the worker failed to provide timely notice of the injury before his termination. The Board emphasized the purpose of section 3600(a)(10) is to prevent spurious claims filed after termination.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompensable industrial injuryLaborerLiberty Glass FabricatorsAmerican Home Assurance CompanyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and Recommendation
References
0
Case No. ADJ8312614, ADJ9055869
Regular
Sep 02, 2017

IMELDA TAPIA DE RODRIGUEZ vs. BIRRIERIA JALISCO, FARMERS INSURANCE, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case consolidates two workers' compensation claims filed by applicant Imelda Tapia De Rodriguez against Birrieria Jalisco. In one claim (ADJ9055869), the WCJ found a specific injury occurred but was barred by the post-termination defense; the Appeals Board affirmed this finding. In the other claim (ADJ8312614), the WCJ found no injury arose out of employment, which the Appeals Board also affirmed, relying on medical evidence and applicant's failure to properly cite record support in her petition. Applicant appealed, arguing the post-termination defense was inapplicable due to employer notice issues and that her credibility was wrongly assessed without proper interpreter use. A dissenting opinion argues that exceptions to the post-termination defense, specifically notice to the employer prior to termination and the date of injury occurring after termination, should have been applied, warranting reversal and further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersPost-Termination DefenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Statute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 3550Notice of RightsQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. ADJ6905551
Regular
May 24, 2010

Donald Laytham vs. SUTTER CENTER FOR PSYCHIATRY

This case concerns whether an industrial injury claim was barred as post-termination under Labor Code § 3600(a)(10). The applicant faxed a claim form on April 10, 2009, before receiving his termination notice on April 14, 2009, which was dated April 10, 2009, and mailed April 13, 2009. The Board affirmed the finding that the employer had sufficient notice of the injury prior to termination via the faxed claim form. Therefore, the claim was not barred as post-termination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactIndustrial InjuryFacilities and Project CoordinatorClaim FormPost Termination ClaimLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code Section 5401(c)Labor Code Section 5402(a)
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 5,105 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