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

Boodram v. Brooklyn Developmental Center

Plaintiff Indra Boodram sued her employer, Brooklyn Developmental Center, for sexual harassment, alleging a hostile work environment. A jury found in her favor, awarding $798,000 in damages. The court had previously dismissed a co-worker, Joseph Adiego, from the suit. The Brooklyn Developmental Center moved to set aside the verdict. The court largely affirmed the jury's findings on hostile work environment and most damage awards. However, it conditionally granted a new trial on damages, reducing the future lost earnings award from $392,000 to $350,000, contingent on the plaintiff's acceptance.

Hostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentHuman Rights LawExecutive Law § 296Jury Verdict ReviewDamages AssessmentEmotional DistressLost EarningsPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderPsychiatric Expert Testimony
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forsyth v. Staten Island Developmental Disabilities Services Office

The claimant, a lifeguard, sustained head and shoulder injuries in an automobile accident while working for the Staten Island Developmental Disabilities Services Office. His workers' compensation benefits were calculated based on concurrent employment, including seasonal work for the City of New York. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the finding of concurrent employment, a decision which was subsequently appealed by the employer and its carrier. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support the finding of concurrent employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 [6], given the claimant's long history of working for both employers during the same periods.

concurrent employmentaverage weekly wageworkers' compensationlifeguard injuryseasonal employmentappellate reviewNew York labor law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1992

Boykins v. Syracuse Developmental Center

The claimant suffered two separate work-related injuries: a knee injury in 1981 while employed by Kelsey-Hayes Company, resulting in permanent partial disability, and a herniated disc in 1987 while working for Syracuse Developmental Center, leading to total permanent disability. Prior to the second injury, her initial compensation award was reduced due to lower wages at Syracuse. The Workers’ Compensation Board apportioned a new award of $244.83, with contributions from both employers. Syracuse appealed, challenging the concurrent awards. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that concurrent awards for distinct injuries in different employments are permissible as long as the total award does not exceed the statutory maximum.

permanent partial disabilitytotal permanent disabilityconcurrent awardsdifferent employmentsstatutory maximumwage lossapportionment of awardknee injuryherniated discWorkers' Compensation Board appeal
References
2
Case No. ADJ8160275
Regular

FAITH YOUNG vs. FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In *Young v. Fairview Developmental Services*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant Faith Young's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) without providing independent grounds. Consequently, the WCAB affirmed the denial of reconsideration in this case.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportAdministrative Law JudgeLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ8160275Anaheim District OfficeFaith Young
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2017

Maioriello v. New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff, Mary Maioriello, a former Developmental Aide Trainee at NYS OPWDD, filed a retaliation action against NYS OPWDD and several individual defendants. She alleged retaliation after reporting abuse of disabled clients, leading to a 'campaign of retaliation and harassment' including multiple interrogations, administrative leave, transfer to another facility, and constructive discharge. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff's claims were time-barred and that their actions were legitimate, non-retaliatory, and pursuant to established policy. The Court granted Defendants' motion, finding that Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding retaliatory acts within the statute of limitations, particularly concerning the conversion of her medical leave to unauthorized leave without pay, and dismissed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as time-barred. The Court also disregarded Plaintiff's newly raised workers' compensation claim.

RetaliationWhistleblowerWorkplace HarassmentConstructive DischargeStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights LawEmployment Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2000

Fields v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

Nathan Fields sued the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) and individuals Maureen McNamara and Trena Fontaine, alleging retaliatory race discrimination in employment. This action followed a previous lawsuit where a jury found no cause of action but did note adverse employment actions and an equal protection violation. Fields claimed retaliation through disciplinary actions and ultimately being laid off. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Fields failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, specifically a causal link between his protected activity (the prior lawsuit) and any adverse employment actions. The court found that Fields did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the causal connection and thus failed to establish a prima facie case. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

RetaliationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 198342 U.S.C. Section 1985New York Human Rights LawPrima Facie CaseCausal Connection
References
9
Case No. ADJ11238147
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

KULDIP SHERGILL, et al. vs. DEPT. OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicants, including the family of the deceased Kuldip Shergill. The petition challenged a finding that Mr. Shergill's death, attributed to psych, heart, and alcohol disorder, was non-industrial. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that the Qualified Medical Evaluator, Dr. Sylvia Shirikian, was qualified to opine on the causation of alcohol abuse disorders, despite not specializing in their treatment. Furthermore, the Board ruled that Mr. Shergill, as an employee of the Department of Developmental Services, was not entitled to the heart presumption under Labor Code § 3212.10.

ADJ11238147Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code § 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSTransmissionNoticeQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEPsychology
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Mete v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation

This class action alleged age discrimination in employment against the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD). Plaintiffs, former Chiefs of Developmental Center Treatment Services, claimed disparate treatment and disparate impact arising from a 1989 reduction in force (RIF) that eliminated their positions. All 46 Chiefs, who were over 40, were either demoted or retired, and statistical evidence showed a disproportionate impact on employees over 40. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while plaintiffs established a prima facie case, OMRDD provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the RIF (economic conditions and long-standing concerns about the position's utility), which plaintiffs failed to adequately prove was a pretext for discrimination.

Age DiscriminationClass ActionSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactReduction in ForceEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie CaseStatistical Evidence
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02156 [215 AD3d 1201]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Holder v. Office for People with Dev. Disabilities

Claimant's husband, a house manager for the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities, contracted COVID-19 and passed away in March 2020. Claimant filed for workers' compensation death benefits, alleging his death was causally related to his employment. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the death benefits claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding there was insufficient evidence to prove COVID-19 was prevalent in the decedent's work environment prior to his symptoms. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant failed to meet her burden of establishing that the decedent contracted COVID-19 in the course of his employment.

COVID-19 DeathWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationEmployment ExposureHouse ManagerGroup HomeBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 227 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