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. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. 531725
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Thomas E. Quinn

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in 2005. In 2009, a settlement was approved where the employer's third-party administrator paid the claimant and the Special Funds Conservation Committee (SFCC) agreed to reimburse the administrator. In 2019, the employer and administrator sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, but the request was deemed untimely by the Workers' Compensation Board due to non-compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (h) (2) (B). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board properly exercised its continuing jurisdiction under Workers' Compensation Law § 123 and that the administrator's reimbursement request was untimely as it was made more than eight years after the agreement was approved.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementTimelinessSettlement AgreementStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation BoardContinuing JurisdictionThird-Party AdministratorAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Sullivan

Gertrude Thomas challenged the Social Security Administration's termination of her widow's benefits. After living with Joseph Thomas for 47 years in a common law marriage and receiving benefits, she was denied them following his death because his prior, undissolved ceremonial marriage to Janie Thomas was deemed valid. Gertrude argued that 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(B) violated equal protection by granting benefits to those in invalid ceremonial marriages but not invalid common law marriages. The District Court upheld the denial, finding a rational basis for the distinction in preventing fraud and easing administration, and dismissed the complaint.

Social Security ActWidow's BenefitsCommon Law Marriage ValidityCeremonial Marriage ValidityEqual Protection ChallengeRational Basis TestStatutory InterpretationFraud PreventionAdministrative EfficiencyDeemed Widow Provision
References
3
Case No. 05 Civ. 606
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Istar Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff Kenneth Thomas sued iStar Financial, Inc. and Ed Baron for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the NYCHRL. Defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, citing Thomas's poor performance and denying discriminatory intent. The Court granted summary judgment for defendants on Thomas's hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and certain retaliation claims (continuing hostile work environment, threats, reprimands, and negative references). However, the Court denied summary judgment on Thomas's claims for discriminatory termination and retaliation in the form of termination, finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded a full dismissal.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentWrongful TerminationFederal Litigation
References
66
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07642
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Thomas (US Pack Logistics, LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Aston R. Thomas, a claimant, was hired by US Pack Logistics, LLC to deliver blood samples. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Thomas was an employee of US Pack Logistics, LLC, making the company liable for unemployment insurance contributions. US Pack Logistics, LLC appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship, noting that US Pack Logistics, LLC exercised sufficient supervision, direction, and control over significant aspects of Thomas's work, despite Thomas using his own vehicle and not being reimbursed for expenses. The court emphasized that the determination of an employment relationship is a question of fact, and the Board's decision, if supported by substantial evidence, is beyond further judicial review.

Unemployment Insurance LawEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance ContributionsLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardJudiciary Law
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00446 [168 AD3d 955]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2019

Matter of Thomas v. Town of Southeast, N.Y.

Petitioner Timothy Thomas, a road maintenance equipment operator, was accused of 12 counts of misconduct by his employer, the Town of Southeast, New York. Allegations included disobeying orders, unauthorized absence, and threatening a superior. Following an administrative hearing under Civil Service Law § 75, the hearing officer found Thomas guilty of 6 charges and recommended termination, citing the nature of incidents, lack of credibility/remorse, and prior disciplinary record. The Town Board adopted this recommendation, leading to Thomas's employment termination. Thomas initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding for review. The Appellate Division confirmed the Town's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding, concluding that the factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate to the offenses.

CPLR Article 78Administrative LawPublic EmploymentMisconductTermination of EmploymentCivil Service LawSubstantial EvidenceJudicial ReviewPenalty DisproportionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04360 [151 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

Thomas v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff, Michael P. Thomas, a taxpayer, filed a lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education (DOE), Chancellor Farina, and Communications Workers of America District One (CWA), alleging fraudulent and wasteful acts related to CWA's use of public school property for a meeting. Thomas also accused the Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District (SCI) of fraudulently concealing these actions. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that CWA paid the customary fees for using the school premises, thus not constituting an illegal gift of money under the New York State Constitution. Furthermore, the Court determined that no cause of action under General Municipal Law § 51 existed because there was no fraud or entirely illegal purpose, and Thomas could not use a taxpayer action to correct technical irregularities. Finally, the Court concluded that Thomas failed to plead a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation against SCI due to lack of intent to deceive and insufficient specificity in his allegations.

Taxpayer ActionFraudulent MisrepresentationWasteful ActsPublic School Property UseGift of MoneyGeneral Municipal LawCPLR 3016(b) Pleading RequirementsAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissSufficiency of Pleadings
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06407 [199 AD3d 1204]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Quinn v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.

Claimant Thomas E. Quinn sustained a work-related injury and later entered into a settlement agreement for future indemnity benefits. The employer's third-party administrator agreed to pay Quinn, and the Special Funds Conservation Committee agreed to reimburse the administrator. The administrator sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund (SDF) more than eight years after payment, which the Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially approved. However, the Workers' Compensation Board, upon reconsideration, found the request untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (h) (2) (B), ruling that the SDF was not required to reimburse. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board had jurisdiction to review the applicability of the statutory time limitations and that the administrator's reimbursement request was indeed untimely.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimTimeliness RequirementSettlement AgreementWaiver of Indemnity BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Law § 15(8)(h)(2)(B)Board's Continuing JurisdictionJudicial ReviewThird-Party Administrator Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Detrick v. H & E MACHINERY, INC.

The plaintiff, Sherry Kellogg Detrick, sued her former employer, H & E Machinery, Inc., alleging sexual harassment under Title VII, Equal Pay Act violations, and state law claims including the New York Human Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Detrick contended she endured a hostile work environment and unequal pay compared to her male successor. H & E moved for summary judgment, arguing the Title VII and state law claims were time-barred, and the Equal Pay Act claim lacked a prima facie showing. The court granted H & E's motion, finding Detrick's harassment claims untimely and her Equal Pay Act claim unsupported by sufficient evidence of substantially equal jobs, and declined jurisdiction over the remaining state human rights claim.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEqual Pay ActStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineNew York Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentTimeliness of Claims
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Nassau County Correctional Center

Plaintiff Robert Thomas, an inmate, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Nassau County Correctional Center, Sheriff Edward Reilly, Officer Kenneth H. Williams, Nassau County, and the Director of Nassau County University Hospital, alleging inadequate medical treatment for an injured hand. The Nassau County defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a federal cause of action, arguing the allegations amounted to medical malpractice, not an Eighth Amendment violation. The court found that Thomas failed to allege a sufficiently serious medical condition or deliberate indifference from the defendants. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the claims against the Nassau County defendants and sua sponte dismissed claims against the director, both without prejudice. The plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Inadequate Medical CareDeliberate IndifferenceEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentSection 1983Prisoner RightsMotion to DismissMedical MalpracticePro Se PlaintiffJail Conditions
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 1,446 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