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
Mar 23, 1990

Mendelowitz v. Xerox Corp.

Plaintiff's decedent, a 'xerographer,' contracted mesothelioma from asbestos in Xerox copying machines, leading to his death. His wife, as administratrix, sued Xerox Corporation, alleging the cancer was caused by inhaling asbestos dust from the machines. The case primarily involved discovery disputes regarding plaintiff's requests for information on asbestos health effects and other lawsuits against Xerox. The Supreme Court initially granted Xerox's motion for a protective order, vacating or partially vacating several discovery requests. This appellate court modified the lower court's order, partially reinstating requests for lists of health claims made by Xerox employees related to asbestos exposure in copying machine manufacturing and fully reinstating requests for lists of lawsuits against Xerox concerning asbestos exposure from copying equipment, regardless of the specific model, while affirming the decision in other respects.

MesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureProduct LiabilityDiscovery DisputeCPLR 3120Protective OrderScope of DiscoveryDocument ProductionMedical InformationPrior Lawsuits
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marchant v. Schenley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Howard M. Marchant initiated an action against Schenley Industries, Inc., and Schenley Affiliated Brands Corp., alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) following his termination at age 54. Marchant sought to amend his complaint to include state claims for breach of contract and tortious discharge, and to request remedies such as reinstatement. The Court granted the plaintiff's motions to amend the complaint but dismissed the tortious discharge claim, finding it unrecognized under Tennessee law, and granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on the breach of contract claim. While denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the original ADEA complaint, the Court granted partial summary judgment against the plaintiff on the issue of damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress under the ADEA. However, the plaintiff's request for reinstatement or damages in lieu of reinstatement was granted, allowing these claims to proceed.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractTortious DischargeSummary JudgmentFederal Civil ProcedurePendent JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionTennessee Employment LawRemedies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re of the Arbitration between Town of Evans & International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied its petition to stay arbitration, granted respondent's counterclaim to compel arbitration, and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees and sanctions. The petitioner had terminated an accountant, Elmar Kiefer, for alleged sexual abuse and misuse of resources. Respondent filed a grievance on Kiefer's behalf, leading to a demand for arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was against public policy as an arbitrator might reinstate Kiefer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the public policy argument was premature and that courts should not pre-emptively assume an arbitrator will exceed their powers or violate public policy. The court also denied attorney's fees and sanctions for both parties.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementSexual HarassmentMisconductAttorney's FeesSanctionsAppellate ReviewGrievanceEmployment Termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc.

Plaintiff Erika Flores was fired by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. on December 31, 1998, and filed suit alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Flores claims her supervisor's demeanor changed after disclosing her pregnancy and that her termination was discriminatory, despite no prior warnings. The defendant argued the termination was due to absenteeism and poor performance. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Flores presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding pretext. The court also denied the defendant's motion to strike claims for reinstatement and front pay, citing outstanding issues regarding the applicability of after-acquired evidence.

Pregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationPretextPrima Facie CaseAfter-Acquired EvidenceReinstatementFront Pay
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2002

In re the Claim of Kearse

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which upheld its prior ruling that the claimant's request for a hearing was untimely. The claimant had been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct and charged with an overpayment, but failed to request a review hearing for several months, mistakenly believing her workers' compensation case was related. The Board, upon reconsideration, adhered to its finding that the request was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that a claimant typically has 30 days to request a hearing unless there is a valid excuse. The court also declined to consider the claimant's belated assertions of post-traumatic stress disorder as a justification for the delay.

Unemployment BenefitsUntimely RequestMisconduct DischargeOverpaymentWorkers' CompensationPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAppellate ReviewHearing TimelinessAdministrative DecisionNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Domanico v. Woodmere Fire District

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 4, 2005, which denied an employer's request for reimbursement of wages paid to a claimant during a period of disability. The court examined whether a June 24, 2004 notice, issued by the self-insured employer, Woodmere Fire District, containing language about reimbursement, was sufficient as a request under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The court found the notice to be sufficient in form. However, a critical issue remained regarding the timeliness of this request; specifically, whether it was filed prior to the compensation award made at the January 7, 2005 hearing. Due to this unresolved issue, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the timeliness of the reimbursement request.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementEmployer Wage ReimbursementDisability WagesTimeliness of Reimbursement RequestWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision AppealJudicial ReversalRemittal for Further ProceedingsNew York Workers' CompensationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 2019-06-1189
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2019

Purvis, Sonia v. Clarksville Montgomery County CAA

Sonia Purvis, an employee, filed a request for temporary disability and reinstatement of medical benefits after her employer, Clarksville Montgomery County Community Action Agency (CMCCAA), terminated them. CMCCAA justified the termination due to Ms. Purvis's refusal to sign medical record releases from previous work-related accidents and a pre-existing condition (lupus), which raised questions about the causation of her current need for treatment. The Court found that Ms. Purvis failed to meet her burden of proof by not providing a medical opinion establishing that her current need for treatment primarily stemmed from her 2018 workplace accident. Therefore, the Court concluded that CMCCAA's decision to suspend benefits was reasonable and denied Ms. Purvis's requests for temporary disability and reinstatement of medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCausationMedical RecordsExpedited HearingRefusal to CooperatePrior InjuryPre-existing ConditionTennessee
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01008
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2020

Matter of Hodge v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This case concerns Mark Hodge's appeal against the New York City Transit Authority after his petition to annul an arbitration award, which upheld his employment termination, and a petition to annul the denial of his reinstatement request were denied. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court determined that Hodge's termination for felony-level conduct was not against public policy, as specific Correction Law articles pertaining to prior convictions did not apply to convictions during employment. Furthermore, the New York City Human Rights Law was inapplicable because Hodge's guilty plea meant the acts were more than mere accusations. The court also found that the denial of his reinstatement request was not arbitrary or capricious, as the agency possessed discretion in such matters and Hodge was attempting to relitigate previously decided issues.

Employment terminationArbitration award appealReinstatement denialPublic policy defenseCorrection Law applicationCriminal conviction in employmentNew York City Human Rights LawAdverse employment actionDiscretionary agency actionCPLR Article 75 proceeding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bland v. Gellman

A claimant had two workers' compensation claims, one managed by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and the other by Travelers Insurance Company, with liability equally apportioned. The claimant's treating physician requested a variance for aquatic therapy, which both carriers denied. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the treatment, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, asserting that the variance request form (MG-2) was not properly served on the Board and that the review request was untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the MG-2 form was timely filed with the Board, referencing both claim numbers, and that the request for review of the denial was also timely. The court concluded that the Board's determination lacked substantial evidence and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Variance RequestAquatic TherapyClaim DenialMG-2 FormTimely FilingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTravelers Insurance CompanySubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. 03-21-00182-CV; 03-21-00233-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2022

in Re Pedro Martinez and Lydia Gonzalez, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Pedro Jovany Bruno Martinez

This case consolidates two original proceedings originating from Travis County district courts, both stemming from a workplace injury leading to the death of 20-year-old Pedro Jovany “Bruno” Martinez. Hellas Construction, Inc., sought mandamus relief to reinstate the abatement of a tort suit filed against it by the Martinez Family, disputing Bruno's employment status at the time of injury. Concurrently, the Martinez Family sought mandamus relief to dismiss its own suit for judicial review of a Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation (DWC) order that found Bruno was a Hellas employee, arguing DWC lacked jurisdiction as no formal claim for benefits was filed. The Court of Appeals deferred to the DWC's interpretation of its exclusive jurisdiction over eligibility disputes, irrespective of an active claim. Consequently, the court granted Hellas's request to reinstate the abatement of the tort suit pending a final decision in the judicial review, and denied the Martinez Family's request for mandamus relief.

Workers' CompensationMandamus ReliefJurisdiction DisputeEmployment StatusWrongful DeathAbatement of ProceedingsJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawStatute of LimitationsTexas Court of Appeals
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 5,882 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