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

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
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. 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. ADJ962699 (STK 0204013)
Regular
Jun 08, 2009

RUTILIO MIRAMONTES vs. MONIER LIFETILE, AIG, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involved Rutilio Miramontes' workers' compensation claim against Monier Lifetile, which was denied based on a post-termination defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The applicant's injury occurred before termination, and the defendants argued that the claim was invalid as it was filed after notice of termination. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding. The WCAB agreed that the applicant's medical records, which contained evidence of his condition prior to termination, satisfied an exception to the post-termination defense, thus allowing the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRUTILIO MIRAMONTESMONIER LIFETILEAIGGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICESINC.ADJ962699STK 0204013ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONWORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
References
2
Case No. ADJ10268949
Regular
Nov 23, 2016

ELOY DELA TORRE FERNANDEZ vs. MERCHANT'S LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that barred the applicant's claim due to a post-termination filing defense. The applicant claimed exceptions to this defense, arguing he received pre-termination treatment and that his date of injury, under Labor Code § 5412, occurred after his termination. The WCAB found insufficient evidence to decide the pre-termination treatment exception and remanded the case to clarify the applicant's date of injury under § 5412, as this date's post-termination status would be an exception to the defense. The prior order was rescinded and the case returned for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination DefenseCumulative InjuryDate of InjurySection 5412Compensable DisabilityTrier of Fact
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Moog, Inc.

Claimant was terminated from employment due to excessive absenteeism. He subsequently filed a complaint alleging discriminatory discharge in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 120 and 241, asserting he was fired for attempting to file a disability benefits claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the termination was for a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason, which was affirmed on appeal. The court emphasized that the burden of proving retaliation rests with the claimant, requiring a causal nexus between protected activity and detrimental employer conduct, which was not established in this case, and that a termination due to lengthy absence, absent retaliatory intent, does not constitute discrimination.

DiscriminationRetaliationExcessive AbsenteeismDisability Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation LawBurden of ProofCausal NexusJob TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ3358392
Regular
Oct 04, 2011

JESUS HERNANDEZ vs. KERN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Permissibly Self-Insured, AIMS

This case involves a deputy sheriff's claim for a left knee injury sustained in August 2005. The defendant employer argued the claim was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) due to a post-termination filing and insufficient evidence. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's findings, ruling the employer had actual notice of the injury prior to termination, satisfying an exception to section 3600(a)(10)(A). Therefore, the claim was deemed compensable and not barred by the post-termination defense.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurydeputy sheriffKern County Sheriff's DepartmentLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensenotice of injurySergeant Goodingqualified medical evaluatorThor Gjerdrum M.D.
References
3
Case No. ADJ7117814
Regular
Feb 11, 2011

JOSE JESUS PANTOJA vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior finding that applicant sustained industrial injury. The defendant argued the claim was barred by Labor Code sections 3600(a)(10) and 3208.3(e) as it was filed post-termination without sufficient evidence of notice or existing medical records prior to termination. The Board found the parties failed to properly frame issues and present evidence, particularly regarding the applicant's claimed date of injury and the defendant's post-termination defense. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSecuritas Security ServicesBroadspireindustrial injurybackneckheadshoulderspsychesleep
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10,543 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