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

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
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. 2016-03-0523
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2016

Hanneken, Kevin v. Consolidated Nuclear Services, LLC

Mr. Kevin Hanneken, a 61-year-old machinist, sought workers' compensation for binaural hearing loss, claiming his employer, Consolidated Nuclear Services, LLC (CNS), was liable for an aggregate 14% permanent medical impairment, which included a pre-existing 5% impairment. The central legal issue was CNS's liability for this pre-existing condition, given that Mr. Hanneken had an ascertainable rating at the start of his employment. The court ruled that the 'last injurious injury' rule does not apply under the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2013 when a pre-existing impairment is readily ascertainable. Consequently, the court found CNS not liable for Mr. Hanneken's pre-existing 5% hearing loss. Mr. Hanneken was awarded nine percent permanent partial disability for the increase in hearing loss during his employment with CNS, amounting to $34,749.00 in benefits, along with medical treatment for his bilateral hearing loss.

Hearing LossOccupational Noise ExposurePre-existing ConditionLast Injurious Injury RuleTennessee Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2013Permanent Partial DisabilityMedical ImpairmentCausationEmployer LiabilityMachinist
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meehan v. County of Tompkins

The case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by a Tompkins County correction officer whose General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits were terminated without a prior hearing. The petitioner was injured in July 1993, and her benefits were discontinued in April 1994, effective March 1994. A subsequent hearing in August 1994 affirmed the termination based on medical testimony suggesting her disability was no longer work-related. The court upheld the finding of sufficient medical evidence for termination but ruled that the pre-hearing termination of benefits was unlawful. Consequently, the court modified the determination, ordering Tompkins County to pay benefits to the petitioner for the period between the initial termination date and the date of the hearing.

General Municipal Law § 207-cCPLR Article 78Benefit TerminationCorrection Officer InjuryDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation BoardPrior Hearing RequirementMedical Evidence SufficiencyDue ProcessTompkins County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. Gaynor

Raymond Holmes, Jr., a former employee of the Village of Piermont, sued Defendants Thomas Gaynor, Dennis Hardy, and the Village, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Holmes claimed selective prosecution regarding an illegal dumping scheme, termination without a pre-deprivation hearing, and defamation linked to his termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Court found Holmes failed to present sufficient evidence for his selective prosecution and liberty interest claims, and that his termination, if it occurred, was pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 71, which does not require a pre-termination hearing. Therefore, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the case was dismissed.

Summary JudgmentCivil RightsEqual ProtectionDue ProcessSelective ProsecutionDefamationLiberty InterestIllegal DumpingWorkers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service Law Section 71
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonardi v. Board of Fire Commissioners

Plaintiff Michael Leonardi brought an action against the Mastic Beach Fire Department and its Board of Fire Commissioners, alleging his termination as a volunteer fireman without a pre-termination hearing violated his constitutional rights. Leonardi, a member since 1963, was terminated in June 1983, just shy of twenty years of service, due to alleged incapacitation and attendance issues. He had previously initiated an Article 78 state court proceeding, which was denied without prejudice. The District Court found that Leonardi, as an exempt volunteer fireman, possessed a constitutionally protected property interest under New York Civil Service Law, and his termination without a prior hearing constituted a deprivation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Leonardi on the issue of liability for his federal claims. However, the court limited the defendants' liability for damages to the period between Leonardi's termination on June 28, 1983, and the date of the state court's order on March 2, 1984, as the state court proceeding provided a constitutionally adequate hearing, thereby ending the period of constitutional deprivation.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationVolunteer FiremanProperty InterestProcedural Due ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingDamages LimitationState Law Protections
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David Michael J.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Onondaga County Family Court, presided over by Judge Hedges, which terminated parental rights. The Appellate Court previously remitted the matter to Family Court for further proceedings, including a dispositional hearing. On remittal, the Family Court's determination was found to be supported by legally sufficient evidence, despite the admission of hearsay testimony, which was deemed proper under Family Ct Act § 624. The court properly relied on testimony from prior hearings and the dispositional hearing to conclude that there had been no substantial change or progress from the respondent that would prevent the termination of parental rights. Consequently, the order to terminate parental rights was unanimously affirmed.

Parental RightsTermination of Parental RightsFamily CourtAppealHearsay EvidenceDispositional HearingSuspended JudgmentComplianceFoster Care
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1973

Reeves v. Golar

A probationary patrolman's employment with the New York City Housing Authority was terminated following suspicions of narcotic use, despite his claims of medication-related quinine traces and denial of unlawful drug use. His requests for medical test reports and a thorough medical examination were denied, leading to an informal hearing and subsequent termination. The court questioned the arbitrary and capricious nature of the dismissal, highlighting that the termination was based on unproven drug use rather than work performance. Citing due process concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the petitioner's liberty interest and reputation, the court found he deserved a proper hearing to refute the charges. Consequently, the Supreme Court's judgment to reinstate the petitioner was partially reversed, and the case was remanded to the Housing Authority for a further hearing and medical investigation.

Due processArticle 78probationary employmentterminationnarcotic suspicionurine testarbitrary and capriciousliberty interestFourteenth Amendmenthearing rights
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 8,692 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