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 06000 [187 AD3d 1395]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2020

Matter of Capraro v. Matrix Absence Mgt.

Claimant, a home-based claims examiner, was injured while moving unassembled new office furniture to his home office after his employer declined to cover the expense. He applied for workers' compensation benefits, but both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The Board had applied a novel, rigid standard for at-home employees, limiting compensability to injuries during regular work hours and active work duties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found this new standard unsupported by precedent and inconsistent with the remedial nature of the Workers' Compensation Law, emphasizing that a regular pattern of work at home makes the residence a place of employment. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter, instructing the Board to apply the long-established standard to determine if the activity was "purely personal" or "reasonable and sufficiently work related."

Workers' CompensationArising out of employmentCourse of employmentWork-from-home injuryOffice furniturePersonal activity vs. work-relatedAppellate reviewRemittalBoard decision reversalHome as workplace
References
20
Case No. ADJ2317869
Regular
Aug 04, 2009

ALLEN BONET vs. HONDA OF OAKLAND, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Honda of Oakland and Matrix Absence Management. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition because the defendants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which are the strict requirements for removal. The Administrative Law Judge recommended denial, citing significant issues with the medical records and the applicant's inconsistent testimony regarding his date of injury. The ALJ had taken the matter out of submission to further develop the record, specifically to determine the correct date of injury, which is crucial for evaluating the defendants' post-termination and statute of limitations defenses.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ2317869Allen BonetHonda of OaklandMatrix Absence ManagementOrder Denying Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable InjuryAOE/COE
References
4
Case No. ADJ3434154
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

GARY ZIMMERMAN vs. LEPRINO FOODS, INC., MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Leprino Foods violated Labor Code section 132a by failing to place the applicant on a required union leave of absence. While the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's termination was lawful based on a doctor's work restrictions, they awarded a 50% increase in compensation up to $10,000, plus costs, due to the Section 132a violation. However, the Board denied back pay, agreeing with the WCJ that lost wages were not caused by the employer's contract violation but by the lawful termination and the applicant's insufficient mitigation efforts. A dissenting commissioner argued for back pay, citing the discriminatory nature of the termination during the mandated leave and the lack of evidence for the WCJ's findings on misleading doctors and failed mitigation.

Labor Code section 132aLeprino FoodsMatrix Absence Management CompanyGary ZimmermanBrian Belanger D.C.permanent and stationary reportunion grievanceArbitratorback payreinstatement
References
3
Case No. ADJ2623515 (SJO 0244721) ADJ1776322 (SJO 0250018)
Regular
Feb 10, 2010

THU-HA TRAN vs. THERMO LASER SCIENCE, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

This case concerns Matrix Absence Management's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision regarding cost reimbursement for applicant Thu-Ha Tran's lumbar spine treatment. The arbitrator previously found insufficient evidence to compel reimbursement between Matrix and St. Paul Travelers. Matrix's petition lacked verification, a requirement under Labor Code section 5902. The Board dismissed the petition because Matrix failed to cure this defect despite notice. Even if verified, the Board would have denied the petition based on the original arbitrator's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalVerificationLabor Code Section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyFindings and OrderReimbursementLumbar SpineMatrix Absence Management
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shafa v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought an employment discrimination action against Montgomery Ward Co., Inc. under Title VII, alleging termination based on national origin. The case was tried before an advisory jury, which found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. The Court concurred, concluding that the plaintiff's termination was due to insubordination and unapproved absence, not discriminatory intent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice, denying all requests for relief, including the defendant's conditional motion for attorney's fees.

employment discriminationTitle VIIterminationpro se litigationinsubordinationnational origin discriminationadvisory juryprima facie caseSecond CircuitMcDonnell Douglas framework
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2009

Bryant v. One Beekman Place, Inc.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of a cooperative apartment, voluntarily subjected themselves to the cooperative's rules, including an alteration agreement for renovations. Their proposed renovations went beyond approved plans, and they failed to submit revised plans, leading to specific objections from the cooperative board's architect regarding fire hazards and other issues. Despite these requirements, plaintiffs continued non-compliant construction, prompting the board to suspend work as authorized by the agreement. The board briefly padlocked an access point to prevent workers during the plaintiffs' absence until compliance was achieved. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the granting of summary judgment, finding that the cooperative's actions were non-malicious, valid, and professionally executed in addressing the unapproved work.

Cooperative ApartmentsRenovation DisputesSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyProperty LawAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionAlteration AgreementStop Work Order
References
4
Case No. ADJ10606418, ADJ10606429
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

Berta Jimenez (Ramirez) vs. EMPLOYBRIDGE, LLC dba SELECT FAMILY OF STAFFING COMPANIES, XL GROUP, administered by CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior Joint Findings and Award. The WCAB found that the lien claimant was not afforded due process as its witness failed to appear at two trials, but the reasons for his absence were not adequately adjudicated. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial judge for further proceedings to determine if there was good cause for the witness's absence. This decision does not rule on the validity of the lien or the witness's reasons for absence, only on the prior award of costs to the defendant.

MPNFunctional Capacity EvaluationLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWCJDue processWCAB Rule 10842Substantial evidenceCompromise and Release
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giaquinto v. New York Telephone Co.

The plaintiff was terminated from employment by the defendant due to excessive absences, consistent with the defendant's absence control plan, even though these absences were caused by illnesses. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination under Executive Law article 15. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was affirmed. The court ruled that termination for inability to reasonably perform job tasks due to disability does not constitute unlawful discrimination, especially when good attendance is crucial for the employer's services.

Disability discriminationEmployment terminationExcessive absenteeismExecutive LawSummary judgmentJob performanceMedical conditionAppellate reviewEmployer policyDiscrimination law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Jensen

The claimant, a dock worker, was terminated from employment due to unauthorized absences exceeding seven days without medical justification. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled this termination constituted disqualifying misconduct, leading to the claimant's ineligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. The claimant appealed, contending that the union contract section cited by the employer only addressed loss of seniority, not dismissal. However, the court clarified that the claimant was deemed to have voluntarily quit due to extended absence, not discharged under the seniority clause. Citing established precedent that unauthorized absences constitute misconduct, the court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductUnauthorized AbsencesTermination of EmploymentDock WorkerUnion ContractSeniorityVoluntary QuitSubstantial EvidenceAppeal Board Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 1998

Claim of Dennis v. County Limousine Service, Inc.

Claimant, employed by County Limousine Service, Inc., was discharged during her 90-day probationary period following a series of absences, some of which she attributed to an ankle injury sustained at work. Although she reported the injury to her supervisor, she failed to consistently provide medical documentation for subsequent absences as required by management. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled her discharge violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, finding the discharge lawful due to excessive, undocumented absences. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant did not meet her burden to prove the discharge was in retaliation for filing a claim, citing conflicting testimony that the Board was entitled to credit.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeExcessive AbsencesProbationary EmploymentEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentUndocumented AbsencesWorkplace Injury
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 767 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