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
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1984

McIntosh v. International Business Machines Corp.

The case involves an appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, regarding the dismissal of a complaint filed by Filomena McIntosh. McIntosh, an employee at will, sought damages for breach of an employment contract, prima facie tort, and malicious discharge. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concurring with the lower court's finding that as an at-will employee, McIntosh failed to demonstrate any limitation on the employer's right to discharge. Additionally, the complaint alleged a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 for unlawful discharge related to a compensation claim. However, the court clarified that enforcement and determination of such violations, including penalties, fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the court.

Employment ContractAt-Will EmploymentWrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewJurisdiction DisputePrima Facie TortMalicious DischargeComplaint DismissalAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1992

Gordon v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

Shari Shapiro Gordon, an Orthodox Jewish woman, filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against MCI Telecommunications Corp. under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Gordon alleged that MCI refused to hire her for a Staff Assistant position due to her need to leave work early on Fridays during the fall and winter for Sabbath observance. MCI moved for summary judgment, contending that Gordon failed to establish a prima facie case and that accommodating her religious practices would impose an undue hardship. The court denied MCI's motion, finding that Gordon had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude a prima facie case of discrimination. Furthermore, MCI's claims of undue hardship were deemed speculative, lacking concrete evidence regarding actual operational disruptions or financial burdens. The case will proceed to trial.

Religious DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSabbath ObservanceUndue HardshipReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseFederal District Court
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Garti v. Salvation Army

The claimant alleged a work-related injury while moving a couch. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie medical evidence, allowing the case to proceed. The employer and its carrier appealed this interlocutory finding to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which refused review and imposed a penalty, citing 12 NYCRR 300.38 (g)(3)(i). The Board determined that findings of prima facie medical evidence are interlocutory and not reviewable at that stage. The employer then appealed to this Court, challenging the regulation and the penalty. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, concurring that the WCLJ's finding of prima facie medical evidence is an interlocutory decision and not immediately appealable, affirming the Board's interpretation of the regulation and deeming the challenge to the penalty premature.

Workers' Compensation LawPrima Facie Medical EvidenceInterlocutory DecisionAppeal DismissalRegulatory ComplianceNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeCausal RelationshipPenalty for Delay
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barrington v. Hudson Valley Fruit Juice, Inc.

The claimant's decedent, a factory laborer, suffered an unwitnessed intracerebral hemorrhage at work and subsequently died. The employer controverted the claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. A WCLJ initially closed the case for lack of prima facie medical evidence, but a subsequent WCLJ reopened and found sufficient medical evidence based on the presumption of compensability in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1). The Workers’ Compensation Board then rescinded this decision, ruling that claimant's medical reports did not constitute prima facie evidence of a causal relationship. On appeal, the Court found that the Board erred in requiring prima facie medical evidence in this unwitnessed death case, compelling the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption. The Court also noted that the employer had not presented evidence to rebut this presumption. The decision of the Board was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationIntracerebral HemorrhageUnwitnessed DeathPresumption of CompensabilityCausal RelationshipPrima Facie Medical EvidenceBoard ErrorReversalRemittalDeath Benefits Claim
References
11
Case No. ADJ9584373
Regular
Apr 23, 2018

FRITCHJOFF GILBERTSON vs. BIG 5 CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ erred in placing the burden of proof on the lien claimant. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the case to the trial level. The Board concluded that a declaration made under penalty of perjury is prima facie evidence, and the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the declaration false. Therefore, the case requires further proceedings to address other lien claim issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and NoticeLabor Code Section 4903.05(c)DeclarationIndependent Bill Review (IBR)Medical Provider Network (MPN)WCJ
References
8
Case No. ADJ6448504
Regular
Dec 20, 2010

LUIS GONZALEZ, LUIS GONZALEZ VALLADERES vs. SAN CRISTOBAL DISTRIBUTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant sought reconsideration of an award allowing medical treatment liens, arguing lien claimants failed to prove causation and the judge erred on penalties/interest. The Board granted reconsideration to defer penalties and interest, affirming the award otherwise. The Board found lien claimants met their prima facie burden using hearsay medical records, shifting the burden to defendant, who failed to rebut. Therefore, the defendant remains liable for the liens despite settling the applicant's claim via Compromise and Release.

Compromise and ReleaseLien ClaimantsPrima Facie CaseReconsiderationMedical Treatment LiensIndustrial InjuryBurden of ProofRebuttal EvidenceBifurcated IssuesPenalties and Interest
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyman v. Schwartz

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the plaintiff's motion to dismiss several counterclaims filed by defendant Arthur Schwartz. Plaintiff, identified as Hyman from prior related cases, initially sued Schwartz and his law firm for legal malpractice and emotional distress. Schwartz, a licensed attorney who previously represented Hyman, subsequently asserted four counterclaims: breach of contract, quantum meruit, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court denied Hyman's motion to dismiss these counterclaims. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order. It affirmed the denial of dismissal for the quantum meruit counterclaim, finding Schwartz adequately stated a cause of action. However, the appellate court reversed the denial and dismissed the counterclaims for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort, concluding that documentary evidence contradicted the breach of contract claim and the alleged conduct for emotional distress and prima facie tort did not meet the required legal thresholds. The court also affirmed the denial of Hyman's motion to renew her claims regarding proper service on Schwartz's former partners, Stuart Lichten and Daniel Bright.

Legal MalpracticeCounterclaimsBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureService of Process
References
35
Case No. dkt. no. 42
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. Purcell Construction Corp.

Plaintiff filed an action against her employer and two co-workers, alleging sexual harassment, discrimination under Title VII and the ADA, retaliation, tortious interference, and prima facie tort. The court reviewed defendants' motion for summary judgment. While hostile work environment, discrimination, tortious interference, and prima facie tort claims were dismissed, the Title VII and ADA retaliation claims against the employer, Purcell Construction Corp., were allowed to proceed. The court also considered the availability of punitive damages for the surviving retaliation claims.

Title VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActHostile Work EnvironmentDiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal CourtSexual HarassmentDisability Discrimination
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2004

Pierce v. HSBC Mortgage Corp.

The plaintiff, a mortgage loan officer, alleged that the defendants violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by terminating his employment while on FMLA leave and denying him approximately $400,000 in commissions. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendants' cross-motion, finding that commissions are not considered "employment benefits" under FMLA. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, as the defendants had decided to terminate his employment before he requested FMLA leave. Even if a prima facie case was made, legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination, such as customer complaints and unprofessional conduct, were provided by the defendants.

FMLARetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment BenefitsCommissionsBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitCausal ConnectionLegitimate Nondiscriminatory ReasonsPretextual Reasons
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,928 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