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

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. 03-10-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2012

Brian Edward Vodicka and Steven Benton Aubrey v. Gregory H. Lahr A/K/A Greg Lahr, Both Individually and D/B/A Capital Advantage Peter Barlin Sandra Gunn And CFSAssociates, Inc. D/B/A Creative Financial Solutions

Brian Edward Vodicka and Steven Benton Aubrey suffered significant financial losses from investments in real-estate-backed loans, which they alleged were part of a Ponzi scheme marketed by Gregory H. Lahr, Peter Barlin, Sandra Gunn, and CFS Associates, Inc. They initiated a lawsuit, alleging various causes of action including gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, common-law fraud, and civil conspiracy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the brokerage appellees on the negligence claims, ruling that no duty of care was owed. On appeal, the core issue was whether the brokerage appellees owed a duty of ordinary negligence. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding no evidence of such a duty under common law or existing precedent, and rejected attempts to recast other claims as ordinary negligence.

Summary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsDuty of CareSecurities FraudFinancial LossesPonzi SchemeBrokerage LiabilityEconomic DamagesAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. McCall

Petitioner, a food service worker, applied for ordinary disability retirement benefits, claiming permanent incapacitation due to a stroke. The respondent denied the application, finding insufficient evidence that petitioner was permanently incapacitated from her duties. During the subsequent CPLR article 78 proceeding, a neurologist for the State and Local Employees’ Retirement System testified that neither their examination nor review of medical records showed significant objective neurological dysfunction that was permanent or disabling. The court confirmed the respondent's determination, ruling it was supported by substantial evidence and that the respondent had the authority to credit one medical expert's opinion over conflicting views from treating physicians. The petition challenging the determination was dismissed.

Ordinary disability retirement benefitsCPLR Article 78Stroke incapacitationMedical expert testimonyConflicting medical opinionsSubstantial evidence reviewAdministrative determinationJudicial reviewPermanent incapacitationRetirement System benefits
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05123
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2022

Matter of Young v. DiNapoli

Petitioner Keith Young, a court officer, sought accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits after sustaining injuries from a slip and fall at work. He alleged permanent incapacitation from job duties. The Comptroller denied his applications, ruling that his injuries were not the result of an 'accident' as defined by the Retirement and Social Security Law. Following a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Comptroller's determination. The court found substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Young's fall was a mere misstep, an inherent risk of his ordinary employment duties, rather than an unexpected event constituting an accident.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityCourt OfficerSlip and FallWorkplace InjuryEmployment DutiesMisstepSubstantial EvidenceComptroller's Determination
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gregg v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, an Administrative Law Judge, sought accidental disability retirement benefits after injuring his back while attempting to retrieve a file from a stack of boxes. The Respondent Comptroller denied the application, finding the injury was not an accident under Retirement and Social Security Law § 63, as it occurred during ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event. The court upheld the Comptroller's determination, concluding that the petitioner's actions in attempting to retrieve the file from the stacked boxes, without removing the top box, constituted an expected event within his ordinary duties. Therefore, the injury was not considered accidental, and the petition to annul the determination was dismissed.

Accidental DisabilityRetirement BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeOrdinary Employment DutiesUnexpected EventCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewComptroller DecisionInjuryBack Injury
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rutyna v. New York City Transit Police Department

The petitioner, a New York City Transit Police Officer, sought an accident disability pension after sustaining multiple back injuries in the line of duty between 1978 and 1981 while performing tasks such as removing a man from a subway, assisting in an arrest, and lifting an unconscious passenger. His application for an accident disability pension was denied by the Medical Board and the respondents, who instead approved an ordinary disability pension. The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing the denial was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, and that the procedures were unconstitutional. The court, constrained by precedent from Lichtenstein and McCambridge, found that the petitioner's injuries resulted from routine police duties and did not meet the "sudden, fortuitous mischance" definition of an accident. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to prove his disability was caused by an unexpected, out-of-the-ordinary event.

Disability pensionAccident disabilityOrdinary disabilityPolice officerLine of duty injuryBack injuryCPLR Article 78Administrative lawJudicial review"Accident" definition
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,262 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