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

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Tioga County

Petitioner Susan Vaziri-Cohen, a mental health nurse, was terminated from her employment with the Tioga County Mental Hygiene Department after five years. Charges of misconduct and incompetence were brought against her under Civil Service Law § 75, alleging falsification of agency records, repeated failure to follow work orders, and damaging remarks about her supervisor. A hearing officer found the charges proven and recommended dismissal, which was upheld by the Director of Community Services. Petitioner challenged this determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing it lacked substantial evidence. The court found substantial direct and circumstantial evidence to support the findings of falsification, failure to follow directives, and inappropriate comments, and confirmed the penalty of dismissal.

Employment TerminationMisconductIncompetenceFalsification of RecordsFailure to Follow OrdersDamaging RemarksCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
8
Case No. M2019-00413-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2020

The Electric Employees' Civil Service and Pension Board of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee v. Brian Mansell

This appeal concerns the termination of Brian Mansell, an NES cable splicer/working foreman, by the Electric Employees’ Civil Service and Pension Board for allegedly approving fraudulent timesheets. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found insufficient evidence of knowing misconduct and recommended Mansell's reinstatement without back pay, citing a lack of training, absence of responsibility to verify timesheets, and common practice of rounding hours. The Board rejected the ALJ's recommendation and upheld the termination without issuing its own factual findings. The trial court reversed the Board's decision, adopting the ALJ's report and ordering Mansell's reinstatement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious due to its failure to make specific findings of fact and its disregard for the ALJ's well-supported findings.

Employment TerminationFraudulent TimesheetsAdministrative Law JudgeJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationBoard DecisionEmployee ReinstatementArbitrary and CapriciousMetro Charter
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. ADJ10810917
Regular
Jun 26, 2018

Olivia Flores vs. APRIL IVETTE LOPEZ dba PALOMARES CLEANING SERVICES, uninsured; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The applicant, Olivia Flores, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision denying her workers' compensation claim for a right shoulder injury. The WCJ found Flores lacked credibility due to alleged falsification of a medical note and contradictory testimony about concurrent employment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the Board noted that the employer and co-worker admitted Flores reported an injury on the date of occurrence, and medical records corroborated her description of vacuuming as the cause, even if based on her history.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderRight Shoulder BladeUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundCredibilitySubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D & D Mason Contractors, Inc. v. Smith

The petitioners challenged a determination by the New York State Department of Labor and its Commissioner, M. Patricia Smith, regarding their willful failure to pay prevailing wages and supplements and falsification of payroll records on a public work project. The court confirmed the original determination, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding on its merits. The court found the notice of hearing sufficiently specific, affirmed the "Laborers (Highway)" classification, and held that the determination was supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, the court found no prejudice due to alleged inadequacies in the notice, the method of calculating underpayments, or the delay in rendering the administrative determination.

prevailing wagelabor law violationspublic work projectspayroll falsificationadministrative reviewsubstantial evidencedue processwage underpaymentsdelay in administrative determinationNew York State Department of Labor
References
21
Case No. 2017-07-0644
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2018

Polk, Ricky v. Delta Faucet

Ricky Polk sought medical benefits for a May 22, 2017, work-related injury, which Delta Faucet denied based on his alleged falsification of a drug test. Polk was terminated after a testing nurse discovered a concealed urine container during a drug test on June 7, 2018. The Court found that the drug test, administered sixteen days post-injury, did not adhere to the Tennessee Drug Free Workplace Program's timing requirements. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Polk, stating he is entitled to medical benefits and ordered Delta Faucet to provide a panel of physicians for his evaluation.

Workers' CompensationDrug TestExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsFalsificationEmployee TerminationDFWPTennessee LawProximate CausePanel of Physicians
References
2
Case No. 05-12-00635-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2013

James, Terry v. Texas Workforce Commission & PTM Healthcare Services, Inc.

Terry James appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and PTM Healthcare Services, Inc. James was fired by PTM for misconduct (late timesheet submissions) and denied unemployment benefits by TWC. The TWC Commission affirmed this decision. James then sought judicial review, but the trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees. James's motions for sanctions were not considered due to non-compliance with local rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding substantial evidence supported the TWC's decision to deny unemployment benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsSummary JudgmentMisconductLate TimesheetsJudicial ReviewAdministrative RemediesSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ProcedureSanctionsVexatious Litigant
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Mead Johnson Nutritional Group

Plaintiff Julia Anderson sued her employer, Mead Johnson Nutritional Group, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, alleging race and sex discrimination under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, as well as an unequal pay claim. Anderson was terminated for alleged falsification of company records after being placed on a Performance Improvement Program. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The Court found Anderson established a prima facie case for race discrimination but failed to prove pretext. For sex discrimination and unequal pay, Anderson failed to present sufficient evidence. Consequently, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on all claims.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationUnequal PaySummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActTennessee Human Rights ActFalsification of RecordsPerformance Improvement ProgramMedical Sales Representative
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 1969

Claim of Mulholland v. New York State Department of Public Works

The case involves an appeal by a claimant whose husband, an engineer for the New York State Department of Public Works, died from coronary arteriosclerosis after experiencing significant emotional stress. The stress stemmed from an upcoming experimental meeting and a dilemma regarding the falsification of inventory data to prevent dissipation of stockpiled goods. The appellant contended that this emotional strain was a causal factor in his fatal coronary occlusion. However, the Workmen’s Compensation Board denied benefits, a decision affirmed on appeal. The court ruled that the emotional strain described was not greater than the ordinary stress workers occasionally face, thus not qualifying as an accidental injury under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

Emotional StressCoronary OcclusionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental Injury ClaimCausationEmployment-Related StressBoard Decision ReviewJudicial ReviewFatal InjuryWork-Related Death
References
2
Case No. 03-13-00723-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2015

Charles Anthony Malouff, Jr. v. State

Charlie Malouff, representing himself, seeks extraordinary relief from a felony conviction for 'Securing Document By Deception' in Travis County, Texas. He alleges extensive misconduct by police, prosecutors, his trial and appellate counsel, and the presiding judge, Karen Sage. Key allegations include falsification of time sheets, destruction of exculpatory evidence (wind energy systems), misleading a magistrate to obtain search warrants, Brady violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflicts of interest. Malouff claims Judge Sage's decisions were influenced by pecuniary and political interests related to her re-election campaign, arguing these cumulative errors resulted in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, violating his constitutional rights.

MisconductDue ProcessFair TrialBrady ViolationsIneffective Assistance of CounselJudicial BiasProsecutorial MisconductPolice MisconductFelony ConvictionHabeas Corpus
References
156
Showing 1-10 of 30 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