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. ADJ8394203
Regular
Oct 08, 2013

Anthony Miranda vs. Fresno Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Anthony Miranda's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision that his injury claim was barred under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). Miranda failed to prove any of the statutory exceptions, specifically that his employer had notice of the injury before his termination notice, that his pre-termination medical records documented the injury, or that the injury occurred after his termination notice. The Board found that Miranda admitted he did not report the injury until after his termination and that no medical evidence existed prior to his termination notice. Therefore, his claim for the May 9, 2012, bus accident injury was denied.

Labor Code 3600(a)(10)Petition for ReconsiderationDenial of ReconsiderationTimeliness of ClaimNotice of TerminationPre-Termination InjuryMedical RecordsSurveillance VideoIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. SFO 0487051
Regular
Jul 22, 2008

JOSEPH DELLAFOSSE vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC., ZURICH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether Joseph Dellafosse's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on March 24, 2004, is barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination claim. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the employer had notice of the injury before layoff notice or that medical records pre-dated the layoff notice. A dissenting commissioner argued the employer failed to prove it was a post-termination claim first, and that the applicant's testimony regarding the sequence of injury notification and layoff notice was improperly discredited.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimnotice of layoffnotice of injurypreponderance of evidenceaffirmative defenseAOE/COEcredibilityworkers' compensationWCJ
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobsen v. New York State Department of Labor

Petitioner, a senior stenographer for the Department of Labor, was terminated after cumulative absences due to a work-related injury exceeded one year, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The Department calculated absences including non-workdays. Petitioner challenged the calculation and argued improper termination due to lack of notice regarding the concurrent running of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. The court found respondent's method of calculating Civil Service Law § 71 leave rational. However, it determined that the Department of Labor failed to provide proper notice that petitioner's FMLA leave would run concurrently with her workers' compensation leave. Consequently, the court annulled the termination, granted the petition for reinstatement with back pay and benefits, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service LawFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Cumulative AbsencesTermination of EmploymentMedical DisabilityNotice RequirementsReinstatementBack Pay and BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
2
Case No. VNO 487026
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

Frank Lujan vs. CG MILLER INC., Republic Indemnity Company of California

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the disallowance of a $\$ 12,547.06$ lien for medical treatment expenses. This decision was based on the finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, as the claim was filed after the applicant's termination and no exceptions under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) were met. The employer lacked prior notice of the injury, and there was insufficient evidence of pre-termination medical records or an injury occurring after notice of termination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryLow BackMover/PackerSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)
References
3
Case No. ADJ7257085
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

RAMON MACIAS vs. SOUTHWIRE CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns an applicant claiming back, hip, and ankle injury from May 1, 2009, who reported it during an exit interview on March 22, 2010, after receiving notice of termination. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the trial judge's findings based on parties' stipulations that the injury was reported post-termination without notice to the employer beforehand. The Board found that Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) bars claims filed after notice of termination unless specific exceptions apply, and the applicant's reported injury date predates termination notice. The issue of potential exceptions under section 3600(a)(10) remains reserved for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimExit interviewActual notice of terminationStipulationsWCABReconsideration deniedPreponderance of evidenceExceptions to denialCompensable injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brian VV. v. Chenango Forks Central School District

Petitioners filed a notice of claim after their six-year-old daughter was allegedly sexually assaulted on a school bus. The respondent, a school district, subsequently served a notice to orally examine the infant and petitioners. While petitioners submitted to examination, they refused to produce their child. The Supreme Court initially granted petitioners’ motion to strike the notice to examine the infant, deeming prior informal interviews with the child as substantial compliance. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that General Municipal Law § 50-h mandates a pre-action examination as a condition precedent. The court ruled that the prior interviews did not fulfill the statutory purpose and that the child's submission to an examination is required. Due to the child's young age, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to conduct a hearing to determine the child's competency to testify under oath before the examination takes place.

General Municipal Law § 50-hEducation Law § 3813Infant examinationSexual assault claimCondition precedentAppellate procedureCompetency hearingSchool district liabilityPre-action discoveryOath requirement
References
13
Case No. ADJ2317869 (OAK 0344295)
Regular
Mar 15, 2011

ALLEN BONET vs. HONDA OF OAKLAND, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior finding that applicant sustained industrial injury to his spine. The Board found applicant's claim is barred by the post-termination defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). Applicant failed to prove any exceptions to this defense, as there was no substantial evidence of employer notice of the alleged injury prior to termination. Furthermore, pre-termination medical records did not document the claimed back injury.

Allen BonetHonda of OaklandMatrix Absence ManagementADJ2317869OAK 0344295Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationWCJindustrial injuryspine
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wheeler v. Parker

Plaintiff James Wheeler filed an action against Sandy Parker, Bruce Potter, and Berkshire Union Free School District, alleging denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment following his termination as an Intervention Worker without a pre-termination hearing. Wheeler, initially hired in 1989, was suspended and terminated in May 2005. The core legal question addressed whether Wheeler's employment constituted a 'property' interest as defined by New York Civil Service Law. The defendants' argument against a pre-termination hearing was found to be unsubstantiated by relevant state law or county commission rules. The court, citing *Ficken v. Vocational Educ. & Extension Bd*, determined that without proper jurisdictional and position classifications by the Columbia County Civil Service Commission, Wheeler's due process rights were violated. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering his reinstatement with back pay and enjoining the District from future terminations without a pre-termination hearing, while dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claims.

Due ProcessFourteenth Amendment42 USC 1988Summary JudgmentPublic EmploymentCivil Service LawNew YorkTerminationPre-termination HearingProperty Interest
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,851 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