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

City of Cohoes v. Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562

The City of Cohoes, as petitioner, sought to prevent arbitration initiated by the Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562, concerning "light duty" assignments for "nonworking" firefighters under General Municipal Law § 207-a (3). The union argued for due process hearings and the arbitrability of these assignments based on their collective bargaining agreement. Justice Harold J. Hughes, however, ruled that issues related to General Municipal Law § 207-a (3) are not subject to arbitration. The court emphasized a strong public policy and established decisional law which supports municipal employers' flexibility in assigning light duty and deems the statute self-contained, separate from contractual arbitration. Consequently, the petitioner's application to stay arbitration was granted, with the court noting that any abuse of employer discretion remains subject to judicial review.

Arbitration StayGeneral Municipal Law 207-aLight DutyFirefighter BenefitsPublic Policy ExceptionCollective BargainingEmployer AuthorityDisabled EmployeesTaylor LawMunicipal Employers
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02174
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2022

Matter of City of Troy (Troy Uniformed Firefighters Assn., Local 86 IAFF, AFL-CIO)

This case concerns an appeal by the City of Troy against a Supreme Court order that denied its application to permanently stay arbitration with the Troy Uniformed Firefighters Association. The dispute arose from the City's implementation of COVID-19 pandemic executive orders, which resulted in non-essential civilian employees working from home or taking leave, while essential firefighters remained on duty. The union filed a grievance seeking equal paid time off or monetary compensation for its members. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that arbitration of the dispute was precluded as a matter of public policy. The court reasoned that the City's actions were a required compliance with statewide public health directives during an extraordinary emergency, and therefore, could not constitute a breach of the collective bargaining agreement that would warrant arbitration.

ArbitrationPublic Policy ExceptionCollective Bargaining AgreementCOVID-19 PandemicExecutive OrdersEssential WorkersGrievanceAppellate ReviewMunicipal LawLabor Relations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kingsaire, Inc., Dba Kings Aire, Inc. v. Jorge Melendez

Appellant Kingsaire, Inc. appeals a jury verdict in favor of its former employee, Jorge Melendez, in a worker's compensation retaliation and breach of contract suit. Melendez was injured and filed a worker's compensation claim, but was subsequently placed on FMLA leave and terminated by Kings Aire. Kings Aire argued its actions were due to a uniformly enforced absence control policy, but Melendez countered that the termination was retaliatory and in violation of the policy's grace period. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding sufficient evidence of retaliatory intent and that Kings Aire did not uniformly apply its absence control policy.

Worker's CompensationRetaliationWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractFMLAAbsence Control PolicyDamages AwardJury VerdictLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
29
Case No. NO. 14-04-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2005

Jake A. English v. Dillard Department Stores Inc.

Jake A. English appealed a summary judgment granted to Dillard Department Stores, Inc. on his retaliatory discharge claim. English was terminated after six months on a leave of absence (LOA) due to an on-the-job injury, which Dillard's claimed was per its neutral LOA policy. English argued the termination was premature by one day and that the policy wasn't uniformly applied. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Dillard's presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (uniform enforcement of LOA policy) and English failed to provide sufficient controverting evidence of retaliatory motive, as his claims of premature termination and discriminatory application were not supported by evidence.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary Judgment AppealLeave of Absence PolicyEmployment TerminationTexas Labor LawAppellate Court DecisionCausal LinkDiscriminatory Policy ApplicationNeutral Absence Control Policy
References
27
Case No. 05-12-01102-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2014

Ronald Kinabrew v. Inergy Propane, LLC

Ronald Kinabrew sued Inergy Propane, LLC for retaliatory discharge after his termination, alleging it was retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Inergy contended the termination resulted from the neutral application of its leave-of-absence policy, as Kinabrew's absence exceeded the twelve-week maximum. The trial court granted summary judgment for Inergy, dismissing Kinabrew's claim. Kinabrew appealed, arguing there was a causal connection between his workers' compensation claim and his termination, and that Inergy's leave policy was not uniformly applied. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Kinabrew failed to provide controverting evidence that Inergy's neutral leave policy was not uniformly enforced or that his termination was retaliatory.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentLeave of absence policyUniform enforcementCausal linkLabor codeEmployment lawMedical leaveTexas Court of Appeals
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mocic v. Sumner County Emergency Medical Services

Kimberly Mocic, an EMT, sued Sumner County Emergency Medical Services (SCEMS) for pregnancy and sex discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Mocic alleged a hostile work environment due to comments about her pregnancy and uniform, refusal of light duty work, and retaliation for filing an EEOC charge. The Court granted summary judgment for SCEMS on Mocic's uniform policy and light duty sex discrimination claims, finding she failed to establish an adverse employment action for the uniform policy and could not identify similarly situated male employees for the light duty claim. However, the Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment and retaliation claims, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the gender basis and severity of harassment, and the adequacy of SCEMS's investigation and motivation for Mocic's termination.

Pregnancy DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITennessee Human Rights ActSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentUniform PolicyLight Duty Work
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Uniformed Firefighters Ass'n, Local 94 v. City of New York

The Uniformed Firefighters Association (UFA) and individual firefighters sued the City of New York, challenging the denial of seniority credit for promotional purposes to firefighters initially re-employed under federal programs (CETA and HUD) in "provisional" capacities after layoffs. Plaintiffs argued violations of the CETA statute and the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court found no private right of action under CETA, asserting that its grievance procedures were exclusive. The court also determined that the City had a rational basis for distinguishing between provisional and permanent employees regarding seniority, citing New York Civil Service Law requirements. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim was granted.

Seniority RightsProvisional EmploymentCETA ProgramHUD ProgramCivil Service LawEqual Protection ClauseMotion to DismissFederal FundingBudgetary CrisisFirefighters
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2007

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. St. Barnabas Community Enterprises, Inc.

This case concerns the arbitrability of disputes between an unnamed petitioner and its insured, St. Barnabas, over retrospective premiums and credits from workers' compensation policies covering 1995-1998 and 2000-2001. The Supreme Court's order, which compelled arbitration and denied St. Barnabas's cross-motion to dismiss, was modified. The appellate court affirmed arbitration for the 1995-1998 policies due to explicit arbitration clauses. However, arbitration for the 2000-2001 policies was stayed as they lacked such clauses and provided for litigation. Claims of fraudulent inducement related to the earlier policies were referred to arbitrators, as they did not specifically challenge the arbitration agreement itself.

ArbitrationWorkers' Compensation PoliciesRetrospective PremiumsInsurance DisputesPolicy InterpretationFraudulent InducementContract LawNew York CourtsAppellate DecisionJurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gallagher v. City of New York

This appeal addresses whether the decision to prioritize a promotional list for firefighter candidates, composed of Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and paramedics within the Fire Department, over an open competitive examination list was arbitrary and capricious or violated the New York State Constitution's Merit and Fitness Clause. The Fire Department and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) determined that EMS personnel had sufficient overlap in responsibilities with firefighters to warrant a promotional pathway. The Supreme Court initially sided with the petitioner, the Uniformed Firefighters Association, finding the preference arbitrary. However, the appellate court reversed, deferring to DCAS's expertise and finding their policy of exhausting promotional lists before open competitive lists rational and consistent with Civil Service Law, even if it meant appointing lower-scoring candidates from the promotional list first due to their prior experience.

Promotional ExamCivil ServiceMerit and Fitness ClauseFirefighter AppointmentsEMTsParamedicsOpen Competitive ExamPublic EmploymentJudicial ReviewCivil Service Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catania v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

This case involves a submitted controversy under sections 546 to 548 of the Civil Practice Act, concerning whether a liability policy issued to John Schiro extends coverage to the plaintiff for injuries sustained by Schiro's wife. Schiro's wife alleged negligence against her spouse in the operation of his vehicle during his employment with the plaintiff. The court analyzed Insurance Law section 167 (subd. 3), which states that policies do not cover liability for spousal injuries unless expressly provided. Citing Morgan v. Greater New York Taxpayers Mut. Ins. Assn., the court treated the policy as if issued to the plaintiff alone, determining that Schiro's wife is not the plaintiff's spouse, thus making section 167 (subd. 3) inapplicable. The decision, supported by Manhattan Cas. Co. v. Cholakis, concluded that the insurer is liable. Therefore, judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to defend the pending negligence action and pay any judgment up to the policy limits.

Liability PolicyInsurance CoverageSpousal LiabilityCivil Practice ActInsurance LawNegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentAutomobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityInterspousal Immunity
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,759 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