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. 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. 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
Case No. ADJ9313922
Regular
Apr 29, 2015

CLIFFORD REYNOLDS vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant, Clifford Reynolds, sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that barred his back injury claim as a post-termination issue. The Board granted reconsideration, finding that his back injury claim is not barred under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). This is because pre-termination medical records contained evidence of the injury, fulfilling an exception to the post-termination defense. The Board amended the findings to reflect that the applicant's neck, back, and left shoulder injuries are not barred.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimCumulative trauma injuryDate of injuryMedical recordsNotice of terminationIndustrial causationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact
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
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. ADJ7472167
Regular
May 04, 2012

MARIA ROSAS vs. S & S RESORT MANAGEMENT, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant who sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denying her claim. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's finding that the claim was barred as a post-termination filing. The applicant failed to present evidence demonstrating any of the statutory exceptions to the post-termination rule. Furthermore, the applicant's arguments regarding the section 5402 presumption of compensability were rejected due to her failure to raise the issue timely at trial.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryHousekeeperLeft ArmBackHipsLeft LegLoss of SleepCompensable Consequence
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 11,077 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