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

Steen v. Governor's Office of Employee Relations

Petitioners, employed as Recreation Workers and Therapists at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center, were assigned new duties as "Treatment Plan Coordinators" under the "Buffalo Model" program. These new responsibilities included transcribing patient information, conducting patient interviews, entering data into worksheets, and performing 90-day progress reviews. Believing these tasks constituted out-of-title work typically performed by higher-grade Treatment Team Leaders, petitioners filed administrative grievances, which were consistently denied by the Governor's Office of Employee Relations. Subsequently, petitioners commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, but the Supreme Court dismissed their application, upholding the administrative determination. On appeal, the higher court found no rational basis for the administrative conclusion that the duties were a logical extension of petitioners' original roles, determining that the work was indeed out-of-title. Consequently, the judgment of the Supreme Court was reversed, the administrative determination annulled, and the petition granted.

Out-of-title workGrievancePosition classificationAdministrative determinationJudicial reviewAlbany CountyState Office of Mental HealthPilgrim Psychiatric CenterTreatment Plan CoordinatorsRecreation Worker
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Administration

Plaintiff Robert Pietri, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit against the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) and individual defendants, alleging claims of failure to accommodate, constitutional rights violations, racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VII. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The Court granted the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's ADA claims against all defendants due to sovereign immunity, § 1983 claims against OCA and Judicial Hearing Officer Adlerberg (due to sovereign and absolute immunity, respectively), and Title VII claims against individual defendants. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss § 1983 claims against defendants Imperatrice and Pfau in their individual capacities and Title VII claims against OCA. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint to address pleading deficiencies, particularly regarding timely filing of Title VII claims and causation for retaliation and hostile work environment.

Employment DiscriminationADACivil Rights Act of 1964Section 1983 ClaimsSovereign ImmunityJudicial ImmunityQualified ImmunityMotion to DismissRetaliationHostile Work Environment
References
139
Case No. 99 Civ. 3594
Regular Panel Decision

Finch ex rel. Moe v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

Plaintiffs Barbara Finch, Carol Jordan, and Barbara Ortiz allege violations of their Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to extensive delays in administrative hearings concerning 'indicated' reports of child abuse/maltreatment in New York's Statewide Central Register (SCR). They seek money damages and injunctive relief against the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), Commissioner John A. Johnson, and Director Dave R. Peters. The court dismissed claims against OCFS and for money damages against individual defendants due to Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity, respectively. However, claims for prospective injunctive relief against the individual defendants were allowed to proceed. The court determined that delays of 12-23 months in administrative hearings could constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of a fundamental liberty interest, but found the individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity for damages as this specific violation was not clearly established law. The State defendants' motion to strike references to race and ethnicity was granted.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentChild Abuse MaltreatmentAdministrative HearingsStatewide Central Register (SCR)New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS)Injunctive ReliefQualified ImmunityEleventh AmendmentLiberty Interest
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meehan v. United States Postal Service

Plaintiff James Meehan, Administrator of Michael J. Meehan's estate, initiated an action against the U.S. Postal Service, U.S.A., and U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the Federal Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLI). He alleged that his son, Michael J. Meehan, was wrongfully denied free life insurance, despite having signed a waiver during his employment. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust the mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. The court concurred with the defendants, ruling that the claim constituted a breach of the collective bargaining agreement, thereby necessitating the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to judicial review. Additionally, the court noted that the action would have been time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations and that Meehan had properly waived his life insurance.

Federal Group Life Insurance ActSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProceduresArbitrationExhaustion of Administrative RemediesStatute of LimitationsLife Insurance Waiver
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 1998

Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The County of Westchester appealed orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The Supreme Court had granted the Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc.'s petition to quash administrative subpoenas (Matter No. 1) and denied the County's motion to enjoin the Association from challenging the subpoenas (Matter No. 2). The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding that the County failed to adhere to Workers’ Compensation Law § 300.10 (c). This statute mandates that subpoenas to a claimant's treating physician can only be issued upon the physician's non-appearance at the first adjournment, not as a routine practice prior to attempts at voluntary appearance. The court emphasized that the County's prior practice violated the statute and impeded the remedial goals of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Administrative LawWorkers' CompensationSubpoena ComplianceAppellate CourtLabor RelationsStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessCollective BargainingJudicial ReviewPublic Sector Employment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 153 v. Miller

Local 153 of the Office and Professional Employees International Union sought judicial review of the National Labor Relations Board's decision to dismiss its petition for certification and the General Counsel's refusal to act on an unfair labor practice charge. The Board had declined jurisdiction over the employer, AGIP, USA, Inc., due to its ownership by the Italian government. The District Court, presided over by Judge Lasker, determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the Board's representation orders or compel the General Counsel, citing precedents establishing the finality of such administrative decisions. Consequently, the court denied the Union's motion for summary judgment and granted the motions of the Board and the intervening employer, dismissing the complaint.

Judicial ReviewNLRB JurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActCertification PetitionUnfair Labor PracticeSubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative LawIntervenorSummary JudgmentGovernment Owned Entity
References
8
Case No. No. 10 Civ. 7405
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2011

Trivedi v. N.Y.S. Unified Court System Office of Court Administration

Plaintiffs Dhiri Trivedi, Hrishikesh Bhattacharjee, Douga Ba, Pa B.F. Drammeh, and Hamadou Seek, former court interpreters, sued their employer, New York Unified Court System Office of Court Administration (OCA), and their union, District Council 37 Local 1070 (DC 37). They alleged employment discrimination based on race, national origin, age, and disability, and retaliation after being terminated for failing a new English proficiency examination. Magistrate Judge Maas recommended granting DC 37's motions entirely and partially granting/denying OCA's motions, dismissing most claims due to sovereign immunity or failure to state a claim, but allowing Title VII discrimination claims to proceed against OCA. District Judge Crotty adopted the R&R, affirming the dismissal of all claims against DC 37 and largely upholding Magistrate Judge Maas's recommendations regarding OCA, allowing only the Title VII discrimination claims against OCA to continue.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADEANYCHRLNYSHRLADASection 1983Sovereign ImmunityReport and RecommendationMagistrate Judge
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutera v. Transportation Security Administration

Plaintiff Leonard Sutera, a Lead Transportation Security Officer, was terminated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) after two urine samples tested positive for marijuana. Sutera alleged that he inadvertently inhaled secondhand smoke and that his termination violated his due process and privacy rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He sought reinstatement, back pay, and damages. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, determining that Sutera's constitutional claims were barred by sovereign immunity or lacked merit. The court found that the termination procedures were constitutionally adequate and dismissed claims under the Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

Due ProcessPrivacy ActAdministrative Procedure ActSovereign ImmunitySummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationDrug TestingFederal EmployeesConstitutional LawSecondhand Smoke
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 6,618 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