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
Aug 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Correctional Officer & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Elsie Pierre, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury in May 2004, leading to workers’ compensation leave. Respondent Department of Correctional Services initiated termination proceedings, but a medical evaluation by respondent's designated physician on September 15, 2005, found her unfit for duty. Pierre's physician, Sanford Wert, later cleared her for work on June 12, 2006, a finding supported by a Hearing Officer who recommended reinstatement with retroactive pay. Respondent, however, rejected the full retroactive award, granting pay only from October 12, 2007, arguing that Pierre had not properly exhausted administrative remedies for the earlier date and that an independent evaluation was lacking. Petitioners challenged this limited retroactive pay, but the Court confirmed the respondent's determination, dismissing the petition and upholding the October 12, 2007, start date for back pay.

Workers' Compensation LeaveRetroactive Back PayCivil Service LawAdministrative ReviewFitness for DutyMedical Evaluation DisputeCorrection Officer EmploymentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial DiscretionAppellate Court Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between George Rattray & Co. & Trenz

Petitioner, George Battray & Company, Inc., sought to stay arbitration demanded by the respondent union following the sale of its assets by Hardwick, Hindle, Inc. (its parent company) to Instruments for Industry, Inc. and the subsequent termination of all employees. The union raised nine issues for arbitration, later reducing them to six. The court analyzed whether these disputes were arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, which required disputes to arise under the agreement and concern its interpretation. The court found that the union failed to present sufficient evidentiary facts to establish an arbitrable dispute regarding the employer's good faith in terminating business, plant relocation, lockout, or the obligation for the purchaser to assume the collective bargaining agreement. However, the court determined that an arbitrable dispute existed concerning the 'floating' holiday pay, as the right to this pay accrued on the first day of the year. The stay of arbitration was granted for all issues except the 'floating' holiday pay.

arbitration staycollective bargaining agreementemployee terminationasset saleunion disputegood faith business terminationarbitrabilityfloating holiday paysuccessor clause interpretationlabor law
References
35
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarco Industries v. Angello

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioners challenged a determination that they failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements. Petitioners, contractors for a project at Cornell University, were found by a Hearing Officer to have underpaid 10 workers and paid apprentice wages to unregistered apprentices. Crucially, they willfully underpaid Nathan McGeever by paying him an an apprentice rate while he worked without journeyman supervision, thereby entitling him to be paid at the higher journeyman rate. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that petitioners knew or should have known they were violating Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the court confirmed the determination, dismissed the petition, and upheld the 20% civil penalty imposed.

prevailing wagesapprentice wagesLabor Law § 220willfulnessCPLR Article 78judicial reviewcivil penaltyconstruction contractjourneyman supervisionunderpayment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2007

Claim of Manticoff v. American Building Maintenance

The claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 2000. Due to an administrative error by the Workers’ Compensation Board, Reliance National Indemnity Company was incorrectly identified as the carrier instead of RSKCo. Despite Reliance raising coverage issues promptly, a WCLJ initially directed it to pay benefits. After a period, a WCLJ found Reliance barred by laches from denying coverage, a decision affirmed by a Board panel. However, the full Board reversed, ruling that Reliance was not barred by laches and that RSKCo was the proper carrier. RSKCo appealed this decision, arguing that laches should apply against Reliance due to an inexcusable delay in denying coverage. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence that Reliance did not inexcusably delay in raising its defense and therefore, the doctrine of laches was inapplicable.

Laches DoctrineInsurance Carrier DisputeAdministrative ErrorThird-Party AdministratorAppellate ReviewCoverage DenialTimeliness of DefensePrejudiceSubstantial EvidenceBoard Decision Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2017

Maioriello v. New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff, Mary Maioriello, a former Developmental Aide Trainee at NYS OPWDD, filed a retaliation action against NYS OPWDD and several individual defendants. She alleged retaliation after reporting abuse of disabled clients, leading to a 'campaign of retaliation and harassment' including multiple interrogations, administrative leave, transfer to another facility, and constructive discharge. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff's claims were time-barred and that their actions were legitimate, non-retaliatory, and pursuant to established policy. The Court granted Defendants' motion, finding that Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding retaliatory acts within the statute of limitations, particularly concerning the conversion of her medical leave to unauthorized leave without pay, and dismissed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as time-barred. The Court also disregarded Plaintiff's newly raised workers' compensation claim.

RetaliationWhistleblowerWorkplace HarassmentConstructive DischargeStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights LawEmployment Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uptown Health Care Management, Inc.

Plaintiffs GEICO allege a scheme where defendants, including Uptown Health Care Management d/b/a East Tremont, Hisham Elzanaty, Alan Goldenberg, Dr. Hisham Ahmed, and Dr. Jadwiga Pawlowski, fraudulently billed GEICO for millions in services. GEICO contends East Tremont was ineligible for reimbursement under New York's no-fault insurance laws, operating without a legitimate medical director, violating its operating certificate, and paying kickbacks for referrals. The complaint raises six causes of action, including declaratory judgment, RICO violations (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), 1962(d)), common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and unjust enrichment. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for Burford abstention and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing GEICO's claims would invalidate a DOH license and interfere with state oversight. Citing the similar Allstate Ins. v. Elzanaty action, the court denied defendants' motions, affirming that insurers can challenge fraudulent licensing and conduct under RICO and fraud claims, even if state authorities have approved the facility. The court concluded that such claims do not disrupt New York's regulatory scheme and need not be raised exclusively with the DOH or through an Article 78 proceeding.

Insurance FraudNo-Fault InsuranceRICO ActMedical LicensingHealthcare FraudAbstention DoctrineRule 12(b)(1) MotionRule 12(b)(6) MotionArticle 28 FacilitiesKickbacks
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1996

Eymer v. Ground Round, Inc.

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Eymer and Patrick Lappin sued The Ground Round, Inc. and its Severance Pay Plan, asserting claims under ERISA for denied severance pay, breach of contract for unpaid vacation days, and age discrimination for Eymer. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on multiple claims. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on Claims 3 and 8 but denied it for the remaining ERISA severance pay, breach of contract for vacation pay, and age discrimination claims. The court found material issues of fact existed regarding the arbitrary and capricious nature of the severance pay denial, disputes over vacation pay policy application, and a potential discriminatory animus concerning age, warranting further proceedings.

ERISAAge DiscriminationBreach of ContractSeverance PayVacation PaySummary Judgment MotionConflict of Interest PolicyEmployment LawEmployee BenefitsArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
17
Case No. FRE 0212901
Regular
Jul 23, 2008

JANETTA SCONIERS vs. COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

The applicant, Janetta Sconiers, has been declared a vexatious litigant and ordered to pay a $1,000 sanction. This decision stems from her repeated filing of frivolous and duplicative petitions to disqualify the judge and set aside prior orders, despite previous admonitions and sanctions. Consequently, her future filings will require approval from the presiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge.

Vexatious LitigantPropria PersonaWCJ DisqualificationFrivolous PleadingsBad Faith ConductSanctionsDuplicative FilingsAffirmative ReliefWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5813
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,756 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