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

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. 2019-04-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2020

West, Amber v. The Balanced Canine Training Academy

Amber West, an employee of The Balanced Canine Training Academy (BCTA), sought workers' compensation benefits for a low-back injury sustained when two large dogs knocked her over a doghouse at work. She also requested psychiatric care and additional temporary disability benefits, alleging an inaccurate average weekly wage calculation. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Cookeville, presided over by Judge Robert Durham, held an expedited hearing. The Court found Ms. West likely to prove her low-back injury primarily arose out of and in the course of her employment, supported by medical evidence from neurosurgeon Joseph Jestus. However, her requests for psychiatric care were denied due to the lack of an order from an authorized physician. Furthermore, the Court denied her claim for additional temporary disability benefits, determining her average weekly wage based on the employer's account and documented evidence, which was lower than Ms. West claimed but still within the minimum compensation rate she had already received.

Workers' CompensationLow-Back InjurySciaticaPsychiatric CareAverage Weekly Wage DisputeExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsDog AttackMedical TreatmentCausation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Morton

Michael Wayne Morton, convicted of his wife's murder in 1987, sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing of various pieces of evidence under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and for fingerprint evidence, finding these did not meet the statutory requirements of being "secured in relation to the offense" or containing "biological material." However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana recovered near the crime scene. The court concluded that if DNA testing on the bandana yielded exculpatory results (Christine's blood and a third party's DNA), there is a greater than 50% likelihood that Morton would not have been convicted, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

forensic DNA testingmurder convictionappealcriminal procedureexculpatory evidenceblood-stained bandanaunidentified fingerprintscircumstantial evidencetime of deathunknown intruder theory
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.

Plaintiffs Ellen M. Sullivan and Mark Gross filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., alleging a vertical resale price maintenance scheme that violated antitrust laws and New York’s Consumer Protection Act. They claimed to have suffered economic injury due to inflated shoe prices. Defendant New Balance moved to dismiss the complaint. District Judge Sweet granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate direct injury from purchasing from conspiring retailers. The court also dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice, granting plaintiffs leave to refile the complaint within 30 days, provided they limit the class to those who purchased from conspiring retailers.

AntitrustClass Action LawsuitResale Price MaintenanceSherman Act Section 1Clayton Act Section 4Consumer StandingMotion to DismissEconomic InjuryPrice Fixing SchemeIndirect Purchaser Standing
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re J.P. Morgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation

Plaintiffs alleged that the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan implemented by JPMorgan Chase violated ERISA by being age discriminatory and by failing to provide adequate notice of reduced benefit accruals after converting to a cash balance plan. Defendants moved to dismiss all remaining counts. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the age discrimination claim (Count I) and the notice claims (Counts IV-VI), interpreting ERISA's "rate of benefit accrual" to refer to the employee's retirement benefit, which is detrimentally affected for older workers in cash balance plans. The court found that the plan conversion could lead to a significant reduction in benefit accrual, requiring notice. Counts II and III, related to back-loading and forfeiture claims, were dismissed as they had been withdrawn by the plaintiffs.

ERISAAge DiscriminationCash Balance PlansDefined Benefit PlansDefined Contribution PlansBenefit AccrualStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNotice RequirementsSummary Plan Description
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jennings v. Minco Technology Labs, Inc.

Brenda L. Jennings sued her employer, Mineo Technology Labs, Inc., seeking to prevent the company from implementing a random drug-testing program for employees via urinalysis, arguing it violated common-law privacy rights. The company counterclaimed, asserting its plan was lawful. The trial court sided with the employer, declaring the plan lawful and enforceable, denying Jennings relief, and awarding attorney's fees to the company. On appeal, Jennings challenged both the lawfulness of the plan and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that 'at-will' employment allows employers to modify terms, and an employee's consent to testing, even if economically compelled, negates an unlawful invasion of privacy. The court also upheld the attorney's fees award, finding no abuse of discretion.

Employment LawDrug TestingPrivacy RightsAt-Will EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefEmployer RightsEmployee RightsCommon LawContract Law
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,208 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