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

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stankowski v. Kim

Plaintiff's decedent, Janusz Stankowski, was killed after being struck by a truck backing into Post & Taback's loading dock at the New York City Terminal Market. Plaintiff alleged negligence against Post & Taback for maintaining a dangerous condition (debris) and failing to control traffic, claiming the debris caused Stankowski to slip and be struck again. The IAS court denied Post & Taback's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding no admissible evidence of Stankowski slipping on debris and no duty for Post & Taback to maintain the area where the accident occurred or control traffic. The dissent argued that issues of fact remained regarding the debris contributing to the accident and Post & Taback's duty to clear the area close to its dock.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulesHearsay EvidenceTraffic ControlLoading Dock AccidentDuty of Care
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. ADJ8312614, ADJ9055869
Regular
Sep 02, 2017

IMELDA TAPIA DE RODRIGUEZ vs. BIRRIERIA JALISCO, FARMERS INSURANCE, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case consolidates two workers' compensation claims filed by applicant Imelda Tapia De Rodriguez against Birrieria Jalisco. In one claim (ADJ9055869), the WCJ found a specific injury occurred but was barred by the post-termination defense; the Appeals Board affirmed this finding. In the other claim (ADJ8312614), the WCJ found no injury arose out of employment, which the Appeals Board also affirmed, relying on medical evidence and applicant's failure to properly cite record support in her petition. Applicant appealed, arguing the post-termination defense was inapplicable due to employer notice issues and that her credibility was wrongly assessed without proper interpreter use. A dissenting opinion argues that exceptions to the post-termination defense, specifically notice to the employer prior to termination and the date of injury occurring after termination, should have been applied, warranting reversal and further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersPost-Termination DefenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Statute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 3550Notice of RightsQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. ADJ7379899
Regular
Nov 12, 2012

DARRIN LANNING vs. BAYWOOD INTERIORS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's contention that the WCJ erred by deeming the post-termination defense moot. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) provides a defense against claims filed after termination or layoff, and this issue is not moot if an industrial injury is found. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior findings and returned the case for further proceedings to determine if the post-termination defense applies and, if so, whether applicant meets any exceptions. The merits of the original finding of industrial injury were not decided and are subject to a new ruling after the post-termination defense is resolved.

AOE/COEpost-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)industrial injurycabinetmakerlower backleft groinright kneemootfindings of fact
References
0
Case No. ADJ10288379
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

XOCHITL CARRERA-MORALES vs. PRIORITY WORKFORCE, INC., ZURICH INSURANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the administrative law judge (WCJ) initially denied benefits based on the post-termination defense. The applicant argued that her date of injury, defined by significant disability and awareness of its industrial causation, occurred after her termination, thus triggering an exception to the defense. The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's decision lacked clarity regarding the basis for the injury determination and that the analysis of the post-termination defense was insufficient. Therefore, the Board rescinded the original decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify the findings and address the post-termination defense.

Post-termination defenseSection 3600(a)(10)Date of injurySection 5412Continuous trauma injuryTemporary partial disabilityMedical evidenceSubstantial evidenceReconsiderationFindings and Orders
References
8
Case No. ADJ10312473
Regular
Sep 01, 2017

CLARA LUNA vs. FISCHER MOLD, INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The WCAB found that the administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision, which barred the applicant's claim based on the post-termination defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10), was procedurally flawed and lacked sufficient analysis. Specifically, the WCAB determined that the applicant may qualify for an exception to the post-termination defense if her date of injury, defined by disability and knowledge of its work-related cause, occurred after her termination. This determination hinges on whether the applicant suffered disability and had the requisite knowledge post-termination, which requires further exploration.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardClara LunaFischer Mold Inc.Pacific Compensation Insurance CompanyOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and Orderspost-termination defenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code Section 5412continuous trauma injury
References
8
Case No. ADJ2760698
Regular
Oct 14, 2011

BERTHA CHAN vs. CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for psychiatric injury and related physical symptoms allegedly resulting from sexual harassment. The applicant claims her employer's post-termination defense is invalid because she did not have notice of termination before filing her claim and had sought medical treatment prior to termination. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found that the applicant did not have the requisite knowledge of a potential industrial injury prior to termination for the post-termination defense to apply.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3208.3sexual harassmentcumulative traumapsychiatric injurypost-termination defenseDWC-1 Claim Formpanel QMEadjustment disordersubstantial evidence
References
8
Case No. ADJ10924076
Regular
Aug 28, 2018

PATRICIA VERA vs. BUMBLE BEE FOODS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision denying applicant Patricia Vera's claim. The ALJ had found that Vera did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment and that her claim was barred by the post-termination defense. The WCAB found that the ALJ failed to fully address the exceptions to the post-termination defense under Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10), specifically subsection (D) concerning the date of injury. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if the post-termination defense applies and, if not, to address the issue of industrial causation.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardBumble Bee FoodsACE American Insurance CompanyESISPatricia VeraOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJpost-termination defenseindustrial causation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,827 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