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

MATTER OF MERSON v. McNally

The Court of Appeals addresses whether a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) can be issued for a Type I action, even when the project has been modified to accommodate environmental concerns. Reviewing two related cases, Matter of Merson v McNally and Matter of Philipstown Indus. Park v Town Bd., the Court examines a mining project by Philipstown Industrial Park, Inc. (PIP) in the Town of Philipstown, Putnam County. The Planning Board, acting as the lead agency, issued a negative declaration after PIP revised its plans in response to public and agency input regarding noise, traffic, and groundwater. The Appellate Division had annulled this declaration, viewing the modifications as impermissible 'conditioned negative declarations.' The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that such project adjustments, made through an open and deliberative process to mitigate potential adverse effects, are a legitimate part of SEQRA review and do not invalidate a negative declaration. The cases are remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of unaddressed issues, including preemption.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationMined Land Reclamation LawType I ActionProject ModificationEnvironmental Impact StatementLead AgencyZoning LawAppellate Review
References
15
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 The WCAB rescinded the Findings and Order in Case No. ADJ6937463 to correctly identify the cumulative injury period and injured body parts, finding applicant sustained industrial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. ADJ9052242
Regular
Dec 13, 2016

VALENTINO DOUGLAS vs. RIALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, PIPS 10, Administered by KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Board rescinded the WCJ's Findings and Award because the applicability of the Labor Code § 5402(b) presumption of compensability could not be determined. Crucially, the record lacked evidence of when the claim form was filed, which is necessary to establish the 90-day period for denial and rebuttal. Furthermore, the presumption was not raised as an issue at trial, potentially violating due process. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to clarify these foundational issues and ensure all relevant medical evidence is considered by expert witnesses.

ADJ9052242Rialto Unified School DistrictValentino DouglasReconsiderationFindings and Award90-day presumptionLab. Code § 5402(b)RebuttalApplicant's credibilitySub-rosa videos
References
23
Case No. ADJ4196316
Regular
Mar 14, 2011

LINDA SMITHEM vs. REDWOOD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PIPS (Protected Insurance Program for Schools) JPA, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Finding and Award. The original award required the defendant to provide a lift for a motorized scooter and a vehicle accommodating it as reasonable medical treatment for the applicant's industrial injury. The defendant argued this was unreasonable medical treatment and that the judge exceeded her authority. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, denying reconsideration, but noted the defendant's ongoing obligation to negotiate in good faith for the required equipment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRedwood City School DistrictPIPSKeenan \& AssociatesFinding and Awardliftmotorized scootervehiclereasonable medical treatmentLabor Code section 4600
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2011

Nolley v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp.

Plaintiff James Nolley sued Swiss Re America Holding Corporation for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Nolley alleged discrimination regarding promotion, exclusion from meetings, assignment of lesser work, issuance of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and termination of employment. The court dismissed the Title VII claims as untimely. For the remaining discrimination claims, the court found Swiss Re provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, citing concerns over Nolley's aggressive demeanor and poor performance. Nolley failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual or that discrimination was a motivating factor. The court also granted summary judgment to Swiss Re on Nolley's retaliation claim, finding no direct evidence of retaliatory motive and that intervening events defeated the inference of causation.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawPerformance Improvement PlanAdverse Employment ActionPretext
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McNamee v. Starbucks Coffee Co.

Sharon McNamee ("Plaintiff") sued her former employer, Starbucks Coffee Company ("Defendant"), alleging discrimination based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (gender) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Plaintiff, a manager, experienced a series of adverse events, including denial of transfers, being placed on a 90-day performance improvement plan (PIP), and ultimately termination due to extended disability leave. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons existed for its actions. The court found that Plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust her ADA claim and could not establish discrimination under the ADEA or Title VII, nor could she maintain her retaliation claim. Consequently, the court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADEAAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas TestAdministrative Exhaustion
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Krause v. Forex Exchange Market, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including clients of Private Investors Peru (PIP) and Copernic, Inc., alleged they were defrauded in a foreign currency investment scheme by multiple defendants, losing all their investments. The primary defendant, Forex Capital Markets, LLC (FXCM), a registered futures commission merchant with whom plaintiffs traded, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to dismiss cross-claims. The court granted FXCM's motion, ruling that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) claims against FXCM failed because the off-exchange foreign currency contracts were exempt from the specific CEA provisions cited, and alienage diversity jurisdiction was lacking as aliens were on both sides of the dispute. Furthermore, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over most state law claims against FXCM due to predominance of state issues and dismissed the remaining aiding and abetting claims for insufficient pleading of fraudulent intent. Consequently, the complaint and the first cross-claim against FXCM were dismissed, with leave for cross-claimants to amend.

FraudInvestment SchemeForeign Currency TradingCommodity Exchange Act (CEA)Subject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionAlienage JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionDismissal of ComplaintAiding and Abetting
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deebs v. Alstom Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiffs William Drake and Timothy Deebs sued their former employer, ALSTOM Transportation, Inc., alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and, for Deebs, retaliation under the ADEA and NYHRL. ALSTOM moved for summary judgment. Drake, a 57-year-old product-line supervisor, was terminated during a reduction in force due to performance issues and being on a performance improvement plan (PIP). Deebs, over forty, was terminated after failing a required electrical skills test multiple times. Deebs also claimed retaliation when his temporary assignment with ALSTOM, through a staffing agency, was ended after HR learned of his prior termination and EEOC charge. The court found that both plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or rebut ALSTOM's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination. Drake's claims of pretext were based on speculation and inadmissible hearsay. Deebs failed to prove he was qualified and his retaliation claim lacked sufficient causal connection or evidence against ALSTOM's non-retaliatory reason of prior poor performance. Therefore, ALSTOM's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentPerformance Improvement PlanReduction in ForcePrima Facie CaseBurden-shiftingPretextDisparate Treatment
References
27
Showing 1-8 of 8 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