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

New York State Correctional Officer & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Elsie Pierre, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury in May 2004, leading to workers’ compensation leave. Respondent Department of Correctional Services initiated termination proceedings, but a medical evaluation by respondent's designated physician on September 15, 2005, found her unfit for duty. Pierre's physician, Sanford Wert, later cleared her for work on June 12, 2006, a finding supported by a Hearing Officer who recommended reinstatement with retroactive pay. Respondent, however, rejected the full retroactive award, granting pay only from October 12, 2007, arguing that Pierre had not properly exhausted administrative remedies for the earlier date and that an independent evaluation was lacking. Petitioners challenged this limited retroactive pay, but the Court confirmed the respondent's determination, dismissing the petition and upholding the October 12, 2007, start date for back pay.

Workers' Compensation LeaveRetroactive Back PayCivil Service LawAdministrative ReviewFitness for DutyMedical Evaluation DisputeCorrection Officer EmploymentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial DiscretionAppellate Court Decision
References
1
Case No. 2020 NYSlipOp 01424
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2020

Matter of Spratley (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision)

Petitioner Wayne Spratley, a correction officer, was suspended without pay and terminated after an off-duty drunken altercation, despite later being acquitted of criminal charges. An arbitrator upheld his termination but granted him full back pay, deeming his suspension retroactively invalid. Spratley sought to confirm this arbitration award, while the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) cross-moved to partially vacate it. The Supreme Court confirmed the award in its entirety. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding back pay, as the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not provide for such a retroactive invalidation of an interim suspension. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, vacating the back pay award, and affirmed the order as modified.

Arbitration AwardPublic Sector EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementInterim SuspensionBack Pay DisputeArbitrator's AuthorityDisciplinary ActionCriminal AcquittalCPLR Article 75Appellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'QUINN v. New York University Medical Center

A jury found defendant New York University Medical Center discriminated against plaintiff O'Quinn based on sex in violation of Title VII and retaliated by terminating her, awarding $158,000 in back pay, $150,000 in compensatory damages, and $500 in punitive damages. Plaintiff moved for pre-judgment interest and reinstatement with retroactive seniority. The court granted pre-judgment interest on both back pay and compensatory damages, to be calculated using the United States treasury bill rate, compounded annually, and spread pro rata over the relevant time frame. The court also granted retroactive seniority. However, the plaintiff's request for reinstatement at a higher salary level equivalent to Stephen Weinstein was denied, with reinstatement ordered to the Project Manager position at the appropriate salary reflecting her retroactive seniority.

Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationWrongful TerminationPre-judgment InterestBack PayCompensatory DamagesRetroactive SeniorityReinstatementFederal Court
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Eddie Ricks was medically disqualified from a sanitation worker position in 1983 due to spina bifida, prompting a discrimination complaint with the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR). An initial 1990 SDHR order found discrimination but could not place Ricks on an eligible list due to its expiration, awarding only back pay and mental anguish damages. This order was vacated in 1996 due to a conflict of interest, leading to a de novo review and a new SDHR order in October 1997. The 1997 order applied a 1994 amendment to Civil Service Law § 56(3) retrospectively, entitling Ricks to placement on a special eligible list, retroactive seniority, back pay, and $20,000 for mental anguish. This court modified the 1997 determination, vacating the back pay award, reducing mental anguish damages to $10,000, but confirming the creation of a special eligible list for Ricks.

Civil Service LawDisability DiscriminationEligible List ExpirationSpecial Eligible ListRetroactive Application of LawBack Pay DamagesCompensatory DamagesMental AnguishCPLR Article 78Judicial Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarco Industries v. Angello

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioners challenged a determination that they failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements. Petitioners, contractors for a project at Cornell University, were found by a Hearing Officer to have underpaid 10 workers and paid apprentice wages to unregistered apprentices. Crucially, they willfully underpaid Nathan McGeever by paying him an an apprentice rate while he worked without journeyman supervision, thereby entitling him to be paid at the higher journeyman rate. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that petitioners knew or should have known they were violating Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the court confirmed the determination, dismissed the petition, and upheld the 20% civil penalty imposed.

prevailing wagesapprentice wagesLabor Law § 220willfulnessCPLR Article 78judicial reviewcivil penaltyconstruction contractjourneyman supervisionunderpayment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kinsey v. Union Free School District No. 1

The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claimant reimbursement for nursing services provided from April 1957 to June 1967. The Board found the claimant guilty of laches as the issue was not raised during a period when the claimant was represented by counsel. The record indicates that the carrier had agreed to pay the claimant $360 per month, retroactive to June 1967, which the claimant accepted without objection. The claim for earlier retroactive reimbursement was only renewed in September 1974. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it was within their powers to bar the claim due to laches.

Reimbursement for Nursing ServicesLaches DefenseRetroactive PaymentsWorkers' Compensation AppealClaimant DelayWaiver of RightsJudicial Review of Board Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrocchi v. Ronan

Plaintiff Anthony J. Petrocchi sought $847.26 in retroactive pay from the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. The claim arose from a labor complaint regarding prevailing wage rates between July 1, 1966, and January 16, 1968. The defendant argued that Petrocchi should have filed his complaint with the Industrial Commissioner, not the City Comptroller, and that payment was only for 'presently' employed individuals. The court found that the defendant was estopped from denying payment, citing Petrocchi's consistent past practice of filing with the Comptroller, which had been honored. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, asserting that denying him equal pay after his approved transfer would be unconscionable and discriminatory.

Prevailing wage disputeRetroactive pay claimLabor Law Section 220Estoppel doctrinePublic Authorities LawInter-agency employment transferEmployment discriminationCustom and practiceFiscal officer jurisdictionEmployee rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between United States Postal Service & American Postal Workers Union

Dorothy Woods sought to modify an arbitration award after her termination from the United States Postal Service, which reinstated her without back pay. She filed an action against the American Postal Workers Union and the Postal Service, requesting back pay, restoration of vacation time, and retroactive sick leave. Chief Judge Motley denied Woods' motion and granted the Postal Service's motion to dismiss. The court determined Woods lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. section 11, as she was not a "party" to the arbitration between the Union and the Postal Service. Additionally, her petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, as her grounds for modification were not recognized by the statute.

Arbitration Award ModificationLabor LawSubject Matter JurisdictionStanding to SueCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionUnion RepresentationGrievance ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 1,842 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