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. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00504 [157 AD3d 1176]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2018

Matter of Gainey v. Stanford

Petitioner, Curtis L. Gainey, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Board of Parole's determination revoking his parole and imposing a 24-month hold. Gainey, convicted of incest in 2001, was paroled in 2014 and subsequently charged with violating parole conditions for failing to participate in and pay for required sex offender treatment. An Administrative Law Judge and the Board of Parole sustained these charges. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence that Gainey failed to comply with his parole conditions despite having the financial means and opportunities to do so. The court dismissed the petition, also noting that Gainey's challenge to the length of his time assessment became moot upon his re-release to parole supervision.

Parole revocationSex offender treatmentCPLR article 78Substantial evidenceParole violationAdministrative lawMootnessCredibility determinationAppellate reviewIncest conviction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Evans

The case involves a petitioner, previously convicted of murder and paroled, who was later found mentally incompetent to stand trial for misdemeanor assault charges incurred while residing in an OMH psychiatric facility. Following the dismissal of criminal charges due to incompetency, the Division of Parole initiated revocation proceedings based on the same conduct. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the parole violation and recommended re-incarceration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's subsequent CPLR Article 78 petition, affirming the revocation. This higher court, in a concurring opinion, reverses the Supreme Court's order, grants the petition, annuls the respondent's determination, and reinstates the petitioner to parole. The core holding is that a prior finding of mental incompetency to stand trial for misdemeanor charges precludes a parole revocation hearing based on the same conduct, emphasizing due process rights and the inability of an incompetent parolee to assist in their own defense. The opinion also highlights legislative deficiencies regarding the Parole Board's authority to determine mental competency.

Competency to stand trialParole revocationDue processMental incompetencyCPLR Article 78 proceedingOffice of Mental Health (OMH)Criminal charges dismissalAdministrative appealStatutory interpretationJudicial remedies
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Johnson v. New York State Board of Parole

The petitioner, previously on parole after convictions for sodomy, rape, and robbery, faced parole revocation following allegations of new crimes and numerous parole violations. A hearing officer sustained 19 of 22 violations, leading to parole revocation. The petitioner's administrative appeal was superseded by an unannounced "Full Board Case Review" (FBCR) by the Board of Parole, which affirmed the revocation without providing the petitioner notice or an opportunity to be heard, effectively undermining his appeal rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent habeas corpus application. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the FBCR procedure was an unauthorized violation of the petitioner's due process rights and statutory right to appeal, causing irreparable harm. The court also noted significant weaknesses in the identification evidence against the petitioner and strong alibi evidence, suggesting a high probability of reversal on the merits. Consequently, the court granted the petition, discharging the petitioner from custody and restoring him to parole status.

Parole revocationDue process violationHabeas corpus reliefEyewitness identificationAlibi defenseDNA evidencePolygraph evidenceAdministrative appealUnauthorized agency reviewPreponderance of evidence
References
15
Case No. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07198 [144 AD3d 691]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2016

Matter of Sellers v. Stanford

Khaliyq Sellers, convicted of first-degree assault, had his parole revoked by the New York State Board of Parole after violating release conditions at a drug treatment center and during detention at Rikers Island. The violations included making verbal threats to "blow up the place" and threatening to kill everyone at Rikers Island, among other non-compliant behaviors. Sellers initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the revocation on grounds of untimeliness and due process violations, which was transferred to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division, Second Department, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits, concluding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court specifically found that verbal threats constituted prohibited behavior under parole rule 8, without requiring physical conduct, and that the final parole revocation hearing was timely held.

Parole RevocationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingSubstantial Evidence ReviewDue Process RightsParole ViolationsVerbal ThreatsTimeliness of HearingAppellate DivisionAssault ConvictionCorrectional Facility Incident
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clemente v. New York State Division of Parole

Plaintiff Clemente, a Hispanic female parole officer and union leader, sued the New York State Division of Parole for employment discrimination under Title VII. She alleged race and gender discrimination, retaliation for a prior lawsuit, and a hostile work environment, citing incidents like a special assignment, a derogatory letter targeting union leaders, a unit transfer, and demeaning comments from a human resources director. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of evidence for discriminatory motive. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that Clemente failed to demonstrate that the Division's actions were motivated by her race, gender, or previous protected activity, instead concluding that the actions stemmed from her position as a union leader, which is not a protected characteristic under Title VII.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentUnion LeadershipPrima Facie CaseCausation
References
41
Case No. 07-CV-120 (NGG)(LB)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2013

Redd v. New York State Division of Parole

Fedie R. Redd, a former parole officer, sued her employer, the New York State Division of Parole (DOP), and Jose Burgos, for sexual harassment, retaliation, and disparate treatment under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. This court previously granted summary judgment to DOP on all claims, but the Second Circuit remanded the sexual harassment claim. Redd then amended her complaint to add retaliation claims against DOP and aiding and abetting claims against Burgos. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on these new claims. The court found no causal connection between Redd's protected activities and her termination, noting the significant weight of an independent arbitrator's decision that Redd's termination was justified due to false reports and disciplinary history. Therefore, the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing Redd's retaliation, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims with prejudice, with the Title VII sexual harassment claim against DOP proceeding to trial.

RetaliationSexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentArbitrationFalse AccusationDisciplinary ActionTitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRL
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wessel v. Sichel

Plaintiff tenant sued defendant landlord and their agents for damages, alleging his apartment was rendered uninhabitable during repairs, items were stolen, and he was constructively evicted in retaliation for a prior rent reduction. Defendants counterclaimed and moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff requested repairs, then impeded work by changing locks and withholding rent. The trial court denied the motion, citing questions of retaliatory intent. The Appellate Division reversed, finding plaintiff's claims conclusory and lacking material evidence. The court granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Summary JudgmentConstructive EvictionRetaliationTenant RightsLandlord-Tenant DisputeAppellate ReviewConclusory EvidenceBurden of ProofDismissalApartment Repairs
References
1
Case No. ADJ7682048 MF ADJ7682067
Regular
Oct 03, 2014

EDGAR DIAZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION PAROLE

This case concerns an applicant who claimed industrial injuries as a parole officer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award of total permanent disability and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board found that the vocational expert's opinion supporting total disability lacked substantial evidence due to an incomplete employment history and contradictions with other evidence. Furthermore, the Board determined that existing medical opinions from Agreed Medical Examiners provided a basis for apportionment of permanent disability to non-industrial factors, which the trial judge had improperly disregarded.

ApportionmentPermanent DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceVocational ExpertMedical EvidenceContinuous TraumaSpecific InjuryBody PartsPreexisting FactorsNonindustrial Factors
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 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