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. 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
Sep 23, 2013

Hodges v. Attorney General

Plaintiff Jerry Hodges, a correctional officer, sued his employer, the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP), for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act. He alleged that his temporary modified assignment (TAD) and the denial of his reassignment bids constituted adverse employment actions and created a hostile work environment. The Court granted the BOP's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It found Hodges failed to exhaust administrative remedies for most claims, and did not demonstrate "materially adverse" employment actions for his discrimination and retaliation claims. Furthermore, the Court rejected the hostile work environment claim, concluding it was improperly raised and that the alleged incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive environment.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationRehabilitation ActSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionHostile Work EnvironmentAdministrative ExhaustionEEO ComplaintTemporary Modified AssignmentMedical Restrictions
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ronald M.

The Erie County Department of Social Services (DSS) obtained temporary custody of Ronald M., Jr. based on a neglect petition alleging the mother's mental illness and substance abuse, and a prior neglect adjudication for an older sibling. At trial, the evidence from a child protective worker, a psychiatrist, and a nurse was deemed insufficient to prove current neglect. The Family Court granted the respondents' motions to dismiss. On appeal, DSS solely relied on the principle that prior neglect of one child is admissible to prove neglect of another, but the appellate court found this insufficient to sustain a neglect finding given the 16-month gap since the prior order and a lack of proof of non-compliance or new concerning behavior by the parents. The order dismissing the neglect petition was unanimously affirmed.

Child NeglectFamily LawAppellate CourtSufficiency of EvidencePrior AdjudicationParental FitnessChild Protective ServicesDomestic ViolenceMental Health IssuesSubstance Abuse History
References
2
Case No. CA 10-02491
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2012

LUCAS, RONALD, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal from a judgment confirming two arbitration awards. The first award found that the respondents violated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by disregarding a binding past practice where the most senior caulker supervisor was offered the right of first refusal for an acting-time position. The second award directed the respondents to pay Donald Mackowiak $54,282.71 and Ronald French $1,094.99 in back pay and lost overtime for their failure to provide this right. The respondents argued on appeal that the awards violated Civil Service Law §§ 61(2) and 64(2), were against public policy, speculative, irrational, and exceeded the arbitrator's power. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, holding that the awards did not violate the Civil Service Law, as temporary appointments under § 64(2) do not require emergency situations. The court also found no public policy violation, citing an employer's ability to limit its discretion by agreement or established past practice, especially when safety is not a concern. The damages were deemed non-speculative, and the awards were found to be rational and within the arbitrator's authority, supported by evidence of a past practice.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementCivil Service LawPublic Policy ChallengeWaiver of DiscretionPast Practice DoctrineActing-Time PositionRight of First RefusalDamages for Lost WagesAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. ADJ8841436
Regular
Jul 11, 2014

RONALD LAWRENCE vs. JOHN MUIR HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ronald Lawrence's petition for reconsideration of the denial of his back injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Judge found Lawrence not credible, citing inconsistencies in his account of the injury. The medical records were ambiguous and the judge gave great weight to his credibility determination, adopting the judge's reasoning for the denial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJCredibilityBurden of ProofDisputed InjuryTestimonial EvidenceMedical RecordsLabor CodeAdmissibility of Evidence
References
1
Case No. CV-23-0674
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Ronald Winkelman

Ronald Winkelman, a claimant in a workers' compensation case, sustained work-related injuries in 2000 and 2018. Following the 2018 injury, he received treatment and was assessed with a temporary partial disability, leading to lifting restrictions. After his employer could not accommodate these restrictions and terminated him, Winkelman secured per diem employment. The employer and its carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, claiming Winkelman made false statements regarding his work activities while receiving benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found no such violation, concluding that Winkelman's activities, including assisting his spouse, did not exceed his medical restrictions. The Board also determined that Winkelman was entitled to a reduced earnings award, finding he demonstrated attachment to the labor market. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and noting the Board's role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraud AllegationReduced Earnings AwardTemporary Partial DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard Decision AffirmationWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLabor Market Attachment
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04443 [207 AD3d 1110]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2022

Guida v. Rivera Investigations, Inc.

Plaintiff James R. Guida was injured when his co-employee, Alex G. Hodges, Jr., accidentally discharged a firearm during a mandatory training course required by their employer, Loomis Armored, US, LLC. Guida received workers' compensation benefits but subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against Hodges. Hodges moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions barred the action because both parties were acting within the scope of their employment. The Supreme Court denied Hodges's motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The Appellate Division found that Hodges successfully demonstrated that both he and Guida were co-employees operating within the scope of their employment, and Hodges's violation of a safety rule did not remove him from that scope. Consequently, workers' compensation was deemed the exclusive remedy, and the action against Hodges was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCo-employee NegligenceScope of EmploymentFirearms AccidentMandatory TrainingSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryAccidental Discharge
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1995

Hodges v. Keane

Plaintiff Richard Hodges, an inmate, sued Sing Sing correctional personnel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging harassment and retaliation. Defendants sought to introduce Hodges' extensive past mental health records and expert testimony from Dr. Richard Ciccone to impeach his credibility, claiming he suffered from conditions affecting his perception. The court found these records and testimony too remote in time from the events and potential trial, noting Hodges' last psychiatric symptoms were in 1982 while the alleged events started in 1987. Furthermore, the records were deemed unfairly prejudicial, voluminous, contradictory, and likely to confuse the jury. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to exclude this evidence was conditionally granted, though the court reserved the right to reconsider based on plaintiff's trial conduct.

Evidentiary RulesExpert Testimony AdmissibilityMental Health RecordsCredibility ImpeachmentFederal Rules of Evidence 403Rule 35(a) ExaminationCivil Rights LitigationPrisoner LitigationMotion In LimineUnfair Prejudice
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 1988

In re James P.

This case involves a child protective petition filed against Ronald J. and Vivian P. concerning three children: James P., Ronald J., Jr., and Shaila J. The Family Court in New York County initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this dismissal, reinstating the petition and making new findings. Specifically, it found that James P. is an abused child by Ronald J., and James P., Ronald J., Jr., and Shaila J. are neglected children by Vivian P. The matter was remanded for a dispositional hearing before a different judge. The decision highlights the importance of corroborating out-of-court statements made by children regarding abuse or neglect, supported by expert testimony.

child protective petitionchild abusechild neglectsexual abusefamily courtappellate reviewcredibility of witnessesexpert testimonycorroborationremand
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01410 [180 AD3d 1259]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2020

Matter of Isabella I. (Ronald I.)

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child abuse and custody modification. The Appellate Division affirmed the finding that the child was abused by the father, citing consistent out-of-court statements from the child, corroborated by expert testimony from a social worker and observable changes in the child's behavior. The court also noted a negative inference could be drawn from the father's failure to appear for DNA testing he requested. Additionally, the Appellate Division upheld the custody order, granting the mother sole legal and physical custody, determining that the abuse finding constituted a significant change in circumstances warranting a custody modification in the child's best interests. The court found no violation of the father's rights despite his absence at the custody hearing, as his counsel was present and presented arguments.

Child AbuseChild NeglectCustody ModificationSexual Abuse AllegationsExpert Witness TestimonyCorroborating EvidenceFamily Court AppealsParental Rights SuspensionBest Interests StandardAppellate Division
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 184 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