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. 2016 NY Slip Op 01180 [138 AD3d 89]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2016

Matter of Harris

Richard T. Harris, an attorney, was charged with five counts of professional misconduct by the Grievance Committee. His law firm, Richard T. Harris & Associates, P.C., pleaded guilty to multiple counts of offering a false instrument for filing, stemming from submitting false fee applications and fraudulent change of venue requests to the Workers' Compensation Board. Harris was found to have engaged in a pattern of submitting false documents, some with forged signatures, and failed to adequately supervise his nonlawyer employees in these actions. The Special Referee sustained all charges, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the report, ultimately suspending Harris from the practice of law for three years.

Attorney MisconductProfessional EthicsGrievance CommitteeFalse FilingsSupervision FailureWorkers' CompensationAttorney SuspensionDisciplinary ActionEthical ViolationsFraudulent Documents
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. Beedle

Plaintiff Adelaide Sharnee Harris brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against her former employers, the Power Authority of the State of New York, Ralph E. Beedle, and John C. Brons, alleging wrongful termination in violation of her First Amendment rights. Harris was fired after publicly displaying "Values Program" buttons in a provocative manner, which she claimed was a form of protest against the program, deeming it a waste of public money. The court applied the Connick v. Myers test, concluding that Harris's speech, despite her claims, did not touch upon matters of public concern but rather internal employment grievances. Furthermore, the court found the "Values Program" itself, which promoted workplace values like excellence and teamwork, to be a permissible employer initiative. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all of Harris's claims.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPublic EmploymentWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentCivil Rights42 U.S.C. 1983Public Concern DoctrineEmployer RetaliationWorkplace Conduct
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. Hirsh

Joan Harris, a Metro-North employee, sued her supervisor, Hirsh, for slander after he accused her of drug use during a work performance meeting. Hirsh claimed the State court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the claim was a 'minor dispute' within the exclusive purview of the Federal Railway Labor Act (RLA) and thus preempted by its mandatory arbitration provisions. The Supreme Court denied dismissal, and a jury awarded Harris damages. The Appellate Division reversed, agreeing with preemption and dismissing the complaint. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the slander action was 'inextricably intertwined' with a work-related investigation authorized by the collective bargaining agreement, making it a preempted 'minor dispute' under the RLA and subject to exclusive arbitration.

RLA preemptionminor disputeFederal Railway Labor Actdefamationslandercollective bargaining agreementsubject matter jurisdictionarbitrationlabor lawemployment dispute
References
21
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06800
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2021

Harris v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Facility LLC

Plaintiff Mariantha Harris appealed an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, denying her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense based on the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the order, granting Harris's cross motion. Harris successfully established prima facie that she was not an employee of Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility LLC at the time of her accident, but rather was solely employed by nonparty Clear Choice, P.C. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that Harris was its special employee, with its reliance solely on the plaintiff performing duties at its nursing home being insufficient. Additionally, the court found the doctrine of judicial estoppel inapplicable because plaintiff had not secured a judgment in her favor in the prior proceeding, and the defendant's prematurity argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Summary JudgmentExclusive RemedyEmployment StatusSpecial EmployeeSlip and FallJudicial EstoppelAppellate ProcedureCross MotionAffirmative DefenseClear Choice P.C.
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03977 [162 AD3d 663]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2018

Matter of Harris v. City of Poughkeepsie

Petitioner Howard Harris, a sanitation worker for the City of Poughkeepsie, was charged with misconduct after he entered a house without authority and removed property during an abatement assignment. Following a disciplinary hearing under Civil Service Law § 75, Harris was found guilty, and the City Administrator terminated his employment. Harris initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge both the guilt finding and the penalty. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the administrative determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that the penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding was dismissed on the merits.

misconductterminationpublic employmentsanitation workerCPLR Article 78judicial reviewadministrative determinationsubstantial evidencepenaltydismissal
References
11
Case No. 534963
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Kevin Harris

Claimant Kevin Harris, a construction worker, sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining work-related injuries in April 2019. An orthopedic surgeon, Louis Rose, examined Harris in May 2020 and reported a significant schedule loss of use (SLU) to his right shoulder, elbow, and wrist. The self-insured employer challenged Rose's findings, asserting his examination constituted an independent medical examination (IME) and that his report failed to comply with statutory and regulatory filing and furnishing requirements. The Workers' Compensation Board sided with the employer, precluding Rose's report and testimony due to non-compliance. Consequently, the Board found insufficient evidence to award SLU benefits, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Independent Medical Examination (IME)Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Orthopedic SurgeonMedical Report PreclusionStatutory ComplianceRegulatory ComplianceAppellate ReviewInjury Claim
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Plaintiff Morgan Harris, Sr., sustained injuries after slipping on a construction site and initiated a lawsuit against Lehr Construction Corporation. Subsequently, Lehr filed a third-party action against Forest Electric Corporation, the plaintiff's employer, seeking common-law indemnification. Forest moved for summary judgment, contending that Harris did not suffer a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which would bar Lehr's indemnification claim. The court clarified the burden of proof for "grave injury" in summary judgment, stating that the movant (Forest) must first establish the absence of such injury. As Forest failed to provide prima facie evidence, its motion for summary judgment was denied. Lehr's cross-motion to amend its complaint to include a claim for failure to procure insurance was denied, while its request to add a claim for contractual indemnification was granted. Lehr's motion for summary judgment on its indemnification claims was deemed premature and denied.

summary judgmentgrave injurycommon-law indemnificationcontractual indemnificationthird-party actionburden of proofconstruction site injurymedical evidenceamendment of complaintemployer liability
References
8
Case No. 534963
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

Matter of Harris v. Department of Envtl. Protection

The claimant, Kevin Harris, a construction worker, filed a workers' compensation claim for work-related injuries to his right shoulder, wrist, and elbow. An orthopedic surgeon, Louis Rose, determined Harris had reached maximum medical improvement and assessed a schedule loss of use (SLU) for these injuries. The self-insured employer challenged Rose's report, arguing his examination was an independent medical examination (IME) and his report failed to comply with statutory and regulatory provisions for IME reports. The Workers' Compensation Board sua sponte agreed that Rose's examination was an IME and precluded his report and testimony due to untimely filing and failure to furnish it to required parties. Consequently, the Board found insufficient evidence for an SLU award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the IME classification and the preclusion of Rose's report due to non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Independent Medical Examination (IME)Medical Report PreclusionTimely FilingComplianceAppellate ReviewOrthopedic InjuryEmployer Self-InsuredRight Shoulder Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chamblee v. Harris & Harris, Inc.

Plaintiff Latoya Chamblee filed a sexual harassment and constructive discharge lawsuit against Harris & Harris, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurant and Jeffrey Artis under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Chamblee alleged her supervisor, Jeffrey Artis, subjected her to persistent sexual harassment, creating an intolerable work environment that compelled her to resign. Defendants sought summary judgment, challenging the constructive discharge claim and arguing against Artis's individual liability under Title VII. The court denied summary judgment on the constructive discharge theory, finding genuine factual disputes existed. It also held that Artis could face individual liability under the New York Human Rights Law due to his significant managerial authority. Additionally, the court ruled on various in limine motions, excluding evidence of plaintiff's alleged sexually transmitted disease and testimony from certain witnesses, but allowing evidence of plaintiff's past failure to pay taxes for impeachment purposes.

Sexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentMotions in LimineIndividual LiabilityWorkplace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentCredibility Evidence
References
21
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00187
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2024

McGlynn v. Burns & Harris, Esq.

In this legal malpractice action, William McGlynn sued attorneys Burns & Harris, Esq., and Allison R. Keenan for failing to notify insurance carriers in a prior personal injury case, preventing him from collecting a judgment. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing judicial estoppel applied due to McGlynn's workers' compensation claim with an inconsistent injury theory. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied McGlynn's cross-motion to strike their answer for spoliation of evidence. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the summary judgment for the defendants, finding that multiple proximate causes for injuries are possible and the judicial estoppel doctrine might not preclude recovery. The court affirmed the denial of McGlynn's cross-motion for spoliation of evidence, determining he failed to show an obligation to preserve the evidence or a culpable state of mind.

legal malpracticesummary judgmentjudicial estoppelspoliation of evidenceproximate causeinsuranceappellate reviewattorney's dutycausationdamages
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 156 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