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

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2008

Mayo v. Personnel Review Board of the Health & Hospitals Corp.

The case involves a petitioner, an HHC supervisor, whose employment was terminated after an altercation. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially recommended dismissal of charges related to assault and unbecoming conduct. However, the Personnel Review Board (PRB) upheld the termination based on an uncharged ground: the petitioner's failure to immediately report the incident. The Supreme Court annulled the PRB's decision, citing a due process violation due to reliance on uncharged misconduct, deemed the termination penalty disproportionate, and directed reinstatement. This appellate court affirmed the finding of a due process violation but modified the Supreme Court's order, remanding the matter to the PRB for further proceedings consistent with the lack of sufficient notice. The court also clarified that the Supreme Court prematurely addressed the application of HHC personnel rule 7.5.6, stating that the PRB should interpret this rule first.

Due Process ViolationUncharged MisconductAdministrative HearingEmployment TerminationReinstatementRemandSufficiency of NoticeAssault ChargesFailure to ReportPersonnel Rules
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Personnel Director challenged the City Civil Service Commission's decision to grant veterans' preference credits to police officers who performed a few hours of active duty during a 1970 postal strike. The Court of Appeals found that the Personnel Director had standing to sue, rejecting the argument of an intra-agency dispute due to the Director's policy-making and enforcement authority over civil service laws. On the merits, the Court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that veterans' credits are intended for individuals whose full-time military service significantly disrupted their civilian lives, a condition not met by the police officers' brief service. The court clarified that mere literal fulfillment of "time of war" and "member of the armed forces" definitions is insufficient without demonstrable sacrifice. Therefore, the orders awarding the preference credits were annulled, emphasizing the restrictive interpretation of such preferences in competitive civil service systems.

Veterans' preference creditsCivil Service LawStanding to sueArticle 78 proceedingMunicipal civil service commissionPersonnel DirectorJudicial review of administrative decisionsArmed Forces reservistsActive dutyConstitutional interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2021

Matter of Gaylord v. Buffalo Transp., Inc.

Claimant Kevin Gaylord, a bus driver for Buffalo Transportation, Inc., sustained multiple injuries after being struck by a car. Buffalo Transportation had a personnel leasing agreement with Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. (SPLI), a professional employer organization, which procured a workers' compensation policy from State National Insurance Company, Inc. State National controverted Gaylord's claim, arguing he was not a covered worksite employee. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that SPLI was statutorily obligated to provide coverage and State National was the proper carrier. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, concluding that SPLI was a co-employer and the State National policy covered Gaylord, as it did not clearly exclude him.

Workers' CompensationProfessional Employer OrganizationPEOCo-employmentInsurance Coverage DisputeStatutory ObligationAppellate ReviewCarrier LiabilityLease AgreementBus Driver Injury
References
8
Case No. MON 0311734
Regular
Feb 19, 2008

DANIEL MUNGUIA vs. PREFERRED PERSONNEL, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that denied his claim for a back injury, finding his testimony regarding the cause of injury lacked credibility. The Board affirmed the decision, emphasizing that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a compensable injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. Key to the decision were contradictions in the applicant's statements and the exclusion of a witness's testimony, which the Board found was properly excluded based on prior orders limiting the record.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationCredibilityBurden of ProofMedical RecordsLabor Code Section 3202Substantial EvidenceMedical TreatmentIndustrial InjuryWCJ
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frazer v. Additional Personnel, Inc.

Additional Personnel, Inc., an employer, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from December 30, 1982. The Board had affirmed the proper cancellation of the employer's workers' compensation insurance policy by the State Insurance Fund, effective June 1, 1980, due to unpaid premiums. The employer was consequently uninsured when an accident occurred on November 20, 1980. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the State Insurance Fund had properly followed cancellation procedures and that a subsequent payment by the employer did not retroactively restore coverage. The court also dismissed the employer's procedural objections regarding the record.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationPremium PaymentUninsured EmployerEstoppelAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedurePolicy LapseNew York LawState Insurance Fund
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piesco v. New York, Department of Personnel

Dr. Judith Piesco sued the City of New York's Department of Personnel, Commissioner Juan Ortiz, and Assistant Commissioner Nicholas La Porte, Jr., alleging retaliation after she testified before a New York State Senate commission regarding deficiencies in a Police Department entrance examination. Her claims included prima facie tort, intentional infliction of mental distress, and a First Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Piesco moved to amend her complaint to add Mayor Edward I. Koch as a defendant and a cause of action for wrongful discharge, which was granted. She also sought to strike the defendants' affirmative defense of failure to file a notice of claim under New York General Municipal Law section 50-i, but this motion was denied, with the court finding state law applicable to the pendent state claims.

RetaliationFirst AmendmentFree SpeechWrongful DischargeMunicipal LawNotice of ClaimFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureErie DoctrinePendent JurisdictionMotion to Amend
References
13
Case No. ADJ8128330
Regular
Feb 14, 2014

FARID OMARI vs. MISSION ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL, ZURICH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant, Mission Essential Personnel and Zurich Insurance. The defendant sought to dismiss the applicant's claim, arguing it was preempted by the Defense Base Act. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, denying the petition. Furthermore, the Board noted multiple procedural violations by defense counsel, including improper pleading, lack of verification, and failure to adhere to rules regarding exhibits and counsel identification, warning against future frivolous conduct.

Petition for RemovalDefense Base Actjurisdictionpreemptedoff calendarWCJWCAB Rule 10490WCAB Rule 10843(b)WCAB Rule 10498WCAB Rule 10842(c)
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Spence v. Shah

In this appeal, petitioners, including the Public Employees Federation and four registered nurses, challenged regulations by the New York Department of Health (DOH) mandating that unvaccinated healthcare personnel wear masks during influenza season. They contended that DOH acted arbitrarily, exceeded its authority, and violated the separation of powers doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the petition, finding that DOH acted within its broad delegated authority to preserve public health. The court determined that the regulations were supported by scientific evidence and were neither arbitrary nor irrational, thus upholding the mask-wearing requirement. The judgment was modified to partially convert the matter to a declaratory judgment action.

Public Health RegulationsMandatory MaskingHealthcare Worker VaccinationAdministrative Law ChallengeDelegation of PowerSeparation of Powers DoctrineArbitrary and Capricious ReviewCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentInfluenza Prevention
References
15
Case No. 77-CV-127, 77-CV-191
Regular Panel Decision

Avitzur v. Davidson

Plaintiff Boaz Avitzur brought an action alleging defendants, various supervisory personnel at the Department of the Army, violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights by conspiring to terminate his civilian employment. Avitzur claimed he was forced to take a psychiatric exam, subjected to surveillance, suspended, and terminated, allegedly in retaliation for whistleblowing and asserting employment rights. While Avitzur was reinstated with back pay through administrative remedies, he sought damages. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that claims arising from the employer-employee relationship were adequately addressed by the comprehensive administrative scheme, thus precluding a Bivens-type action for damages. Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged "unconstitutional surveillance" did not constitute a deprivation of constitutional rights.

Federal EmploymentConstitutional RightsBivens ActionQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentSixth Amendment
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 431 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