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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Spectrum Information Technologies, Inc.

This bankruptcy case concerns two motions: the Debtors' request to reject John Marchione's employment agreement and Marchione's application for his severance pay claim to be treated as an administrative expense. John Marchione, former president of a debtor subsidiary, was involuntarily terminated post-petition. The Court, presided over by Chief Judge Conrad B. Duberstein in the Eastern District of New York, ruled that the employment agreement was not an executory contract at the time of the rejection motion. Citing established Second Circuit precedent, the Court held that Marchione's severance pay, despite being calculated based on length of service, accrues entirely upon post-petition termination and thus qualifies as an administrative expense entitled to priority under the Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, the Debtors' motion to reject was denied, and Marchione's claim for $75,000 was granted administrative expense priority.

BankruptcyExecutory ContractsEmployment AgreementSeverance PayAdministrative ExpensePriority ClaimRejection of ContractChapter 11Debtor-in-PossessionSecond Circuit Precedent
References
35
Case No. ADJ6905551
Regular
May 24, 2010

Donald Laytham vs. SUTTER CENTER FOR PSYCHIATRY

This case concerns whether an industrial injury claim was barred as post-termination under Labor Code § 3600(a)(10). The applicant faxed a claim form on April 10, 2009, before receiving his termination notice on April 14, 2009, which was dated April 10, 2009, and mailed April 13, 2009. The Board affirmed the finding that the employer had sufficient notice of the injury prior to termination via the faxed claim form. Therefore, the claim was not barred as post-termination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactIndustrial InjuryFacilities and Project CoordinatorClaim FormPost Termination ClaimLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code Section 5401(c)Labor Code Section 5402(a)
References
1
Case No. LAO 0869924
Regular
Jun 06, 2008

MIRNA SOSA vs. JESI-CARE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant's claim for workers' compensation was denied because the evidence did not support her claim of an industrial injury, and the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and post-termination claim rules. The Board found the applicant's testimony regarding reporting the injury to be not credible, citing contradictory medical evidence and employer testimony. Because the applicant did not report the alleged injury within one year of its occurrence, the statute of limitations was not tolled, and the claim also failed as a post-termination claim due to lack of employer notice or medical records indicating injury prior to termination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardapplicant's claimstatute of limitationspost-termination claimcredible testimonyemployer noticemedical recordsdate of injuryindustrial injuryWCJ credibility determination
References
3
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. ADJ12672803, ADJ12979844, ADJ12673709
Regular
Apr 24, 2023

FREDDIE BANUELOS vs. ROBERT BERCU, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of three prior decisions, affirming the dismissal of the post-termination defense for a right knee injury (ADJ12979844) and a cumulative trauma psychiatric injury claim (ADJ12673709), finding employer knowledge prior to termination. However, the Board amended the decision for a cumulative orthopedic injury claim (ADJ12672803), deferring the finding of industrial injury pending further development of the record regarding specific body parts and treatment needs. The Board also clarified that no psychiatric injury was found to date in ADJ12673709, and arguments regarding medical evidence for that claim were premature.

Post-termination defenseLabor Code 3600(a)(10)Labor Code 3208.3(e)Employer knowledgeIndustrial injuryOrthopedic injuryPsychiatric injuryCumulative traumaSpecific injuryRight knee injury
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 18,792 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