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

Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor

In this concurring opinion, Judge Abdus-Salaam argues against the majority's expansion of the workplace exception to the warrant requirement, asserting it infringes upon a government employee's reasonable expectation of privacy under the New York Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. The judge contends that placing a GPS device on a personal car to investigate workplace misconduct, even during work hours, requires a warrant. Citing cases like People v Weaver and United States v Jones, the opinion highlights the highly intrusive nature of GPS surveillance, which can reveal extensive personal information. It distinguishes the search of a personal vehicle from workplace searches permitted under O’Connor v Ortega, emphasizing that a personal car is outside the employer's control and traditional workplace boundaries. The opinion warns that allowing warrantless GPS tracking sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to widespread electronic surveillance of government employees based on a mere 'reasonableness' standard without judicial oversight.

GPS trackingWarrant requirementWorkplace exceptionFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionGovernment employeesPrivacy rightsWorkplace misconductElectronic surveillancePersonal vehicle search
References
11
Case No. ADJ6884625
Regular
Jun 19, 2012

JASON PETERSON, KIRSTIE MCCRAINE-PETERSON vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the death of Jason Peterson, a correctional officer, from a pulmonary embolism after injuring his calf in a kickboxing class. The applicant, his widow, claimed the injury and death were work-related, arguing the kickboxing class was a reasonable expectancy of employment due to a general fitness requirement and incentive program. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the claim barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9) because the decedent's belief that kickboxing was required was not objectively reasonable, as mere general assertions of fitness expectations are insufficient. Commissioner Brass dissented, believing the decedent's participation was both subjectively and objectively reasonable given its likely benefit to his job performance as a correctional officer.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Pulmonary EmbolismCorrectional OfficerKickboxingOff-duty Recreational ActivityReasonable Expectancy of EmploymentSubjective BeliefObjective ReasonablenessEzzy testCity of Stockton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jenneiahn)
References
2
Case No. ADJ8334555
Regular
Apr 05, 2013

JOSE HERNANDEZ vs. BRYAN MIMAKI dba PACIFIC RIMS, PALMS; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether a knee injury sustained by an employee, Jose Hernandez, while playing basketball on company premises during lunch is compensable. The defendant argued the injury did not arise out of employment, as it stemmed from voluntary participation in an athletic activity not required by the employer. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the injury was industrial. The majority found the employee's subjective belief of employer expectation was objectively reasonable, given the employer provided a court and balls and supervisors encouraged participation. Commissioner Lowe dissented, arguing the applicant failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable belief of employer expectation, as he could opt out and faced no repercussions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryRight KneeField WorkerBasketball GameOff-Duty Recreational ActivityLabor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Reasonable Expectancy of EmploymentSubjective BeliefObjective Reasonableness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crosby v. State

This case involves an appeal from a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The plaintiff argued that the statute, which limits attorney fees in workers' compensation cases, violated her rights to privacy, freedom to contract, and equal protection. The Supreme Court at Special Term granted summary judgment to the defendant, the Workers’ Compensation Board, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the constitutionality of section 24, finding no violation of the plaintiff’s rights. The court reasoned that the right to privacy does not extend to attorney contracts, the freedom to contract is subject to reasonable police power limitations, and the fee limitations serve a rational legislative purpose of protecting claimants, thus satisfying equal protection requirements.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney FeesConstitutional LawRight to PrivacyFreedom to ContractEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentAppealPolice PowerDeclaratory Judgment
References
6
Case No. ADJ1479326 (ANA 0411799) ADJ7233578
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

JONATHAN DUONG vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned a WCJ's decision to exclude sub rosa surveillance video. The Board found no legal basis for excluding the video obtained in a mobile home park parking lot and a grocery store, as the applicant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in those public areas. The Board determined that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice from the exclusion, justifying removal of the case. Therefore, the sub rosa video was ruled admissible and may be provided to medical evaluators.

Sub rosa videoremovalreconsiderationadmissibilityinvasion of privacyreasonable expectation of privacycivil liabilityworkers' compensation fraudmedical-legal evaluatorworkers' compensation appeals board
References
20
Case No. ADJ2776530
Regular
Aug 07, 2015

AMY SMITH vs. WALTER CLAUDIO SALON & SPA, INC., STATE FARM INSURANCE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Amy Smith, challenging an order allowing the defendant to submit surveillance videotape evidence to an Agreed Medical Examiner. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order was not a final decision but an interlocutory ruling on evidence. The Appeals Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant. The WCJ's report, adopted by the Board, concluded that the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy while exercising in a public gym and that the videotape was relevant to the claim.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. McHugh

Marytherese Miller, a legal technician at West Point, sued her employer, the Secretary of the Army, alleging employment discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, hostile work environment, and Privacy Act violations. Miller, who underwent two knee surgeries, requested worksite and parking accommodations, and advanced leave, which she claims were denied or inadequately provided. She also alleged a job reclassification, lowered performance evaluations, and inappropriate comments from co-workers were retaliatory or created a hostile environment. The Government moved for summary judgment, arguing Miller was not disabled under the ADA during the relevant periods, her accommodations were reasonable, and her other claims lacked prima facie evidence or causal connection. The court found Miller did not provide sufficient medical evidence of disability prior to her second surgery and that reasonable accommodations were offered afterward. It also determined that alleged retaliatory actions predated protected activities or lacked causation, and that hostile work environment claims were not severe or pervasive enough. Finally, Miller's Privacy Act claim lacked proof of record disclosure or adverse effect. Consequently, the Government's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentPrivacy ActSummary JudgmentRehabilitation ActAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VII
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tancredi v. Malfitano

Plaintiffs, a group of police officers, filed an action against various Town officials and the Town and Village of Harrison, New York. They alleged violations of their Fourth Amendment rights and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, specifically claiming that their conversations at the police department's front desk were secretly recorded. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public and common workspace area of the police station's front desk, thereby dismissing both their Fourth Amendment and statutory claims.

Fourth AmendmentUnreasonable SearchExpectation of PrivacyWorkplace PrivacyPolice Department911 Communications SystemAudio RecordingSummary JudgmentFederal Civil Rights42 U.S.C. § 1983
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caruso v. Ward

Judge Kaye's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's approval of a random urine testing program for the elite OCCB police unit without individualized suspicion. She argues this deviates from prior precedent, particularly *Matter of Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ.*, which required individualized reasonable suspicion for similar searches. The dissent contends that the government has not demonstrated a compelling need for such intrusive searches, citing the lack of evidence for pervasive drug use among OCCB members. Furthermore, Kaye asserts that the program lacks sufficient procedural safeguards and that the concept of 'diminished privacy expectations' for public employees cannot justify random, suspicionless searches. The dissent advocates for upholding the Appellate Division's order, which the majority reversed.

Random Drug TestingFourth AmendmentConstitutional LawSearch and SeizurePolice OfficersPublic EmployeesIndividualized SuspicionPrivacy RightsWorkplace Drug TestingDissenting Opinion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Yudong Zhu

Defendant Yudong Zhu, indicted on various fraud and bribery charges, moved to suppress evidence seized from his encrypted work laptop, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation. Zhu, an assistant professor at NYU, purchased the laptop with NIH grant funds and used it for both personal and professional tasks. During an NYU investigation, Zhu surrendered the laptop but withheld passwords, leading NYU to provide it to the FBI. The FBI conducted a warrantless search based on NYU's consent. The Court acknowledged Zhu's reasonable expectation of privacy due to his security measures and exclusive use. However, it ultimately denied his motion, ruling that NYU's consent was valid because of Zhu's signed authorization allowing NYU to inspect its computers for policy compliance, and NYU's common authority and substantial interest as the laptop's owner.

Fourth AmendmentExpectation of PrivacyWarrantless SearchThird-Party ConsentEmployer PolicyLaptop SearchCriminal ProcedureSuppression MotionElectronic EvidenceNIH Grant
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 4,505 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