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
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
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

In re the Arbitration between County of Broome & New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, District Council 82

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted petitioners' application to stay arbitration. The dispute originated when correction officer Tim Mooney was reassigned from courthouse duties by an Administrative Judge. The respondent union filed a grievance on Mooney's behalf, arguing that the reassignment violated a collective bargaining agreement and sought arbitration for his reinstatement. Petitioners, the County of Broome and Sheriff Harder, commenced a proceeding to stay arbitration, contending that public policy prohibits arbitration in this matter. The Supreme Court agreed and granted the application. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that Mooney's reinstatement would infringe upon the courts' inherent authority to manage judicial functions and would be contrary to strong public policy.

Arbitration StayPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial AuthorityCourt ManagementGrievanceEmployee ReassignmentCorrection OfficerBroome CountyAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. ADJ8552834
Regular
Aug 24, 2015

JOHN SKORUPAN vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, ACE USA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify its jurisdiction over applicant John Skorupan's cumulative industrial injury claim against the New York Giants. The WCAB affirmed the administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that while the WCAB has personal jurisdiction, California lacks a legitimate and substantial interest to exercise jurisdiction over the claim, citing the *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)* precedent. This decision hinges on the applicant's minimal California contacts (5 games out of 141 played) not establishing a sufficient connection for due process. Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that the applicant's more than de minimis exposure in California and the state's public policy of protecting injured workers should support jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardcumulative industrial injuryprofessional athleteoutside linebackerspecial teamsFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)de minimis California contactsconstitutional due processPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1997

Abrams v. Kelsey-Seybold Medical Group, Inc.

Present and former African-American and Hispanic employees and unsuccessful job applicants filed a putative class action against Kelsey-Seybold Clinic and its associated entities, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas state law. Plaintiffs sought class certification for African-American applicants and employees seeking promotions/transfers. The court, presided over by Judge Rosenthal, denied the motion for class certification. The court found that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) and the "grounds generally applicable to the class" requirement of Rule 23(b)(2), citing the individualized nature of the discrimination claims and insufficient evidence of a company-wide discriminatory policy.

Class ActionEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactClass CertificationRule 23NumerosityCommonality
References
42
Case No. ADJ11328040
Regular
Nov 05, 2019

GREGORIO HERNANDEZ vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding that the applicant was not covered by the Southeast Personnel Leasing (SPL) insurance policy. The applicant, employed by JL Furnishings, claimed SPL's policy, which covered employees leased from JL Furnishings, should also cover him. However, the Board found that since the applicant was not a leased employee of SPL, SPL had no employer liability for his injury. Therefore, the SPL policy, by its terms and endorsements compliant with regulations, did not provide coverage for the applicant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSoutheast Personnel LeasingState National InsurancePackard Claims AdministrationFindings and Awardleased employeesemployee leasing arrangementLabor Code 3602(d)joint and several liabilityProfessional Employer Organization
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baptist Memorial Healthcare System v. Casanova

Roger Casanova sued Baptist Healthcare Systems for retaliatory discharge and discrimination after being fired in November 1994 following a workplace injury. Casanova, placed on workers' compensation leave, was terminated after exceeding Baptist's six-month leave policy, leading him to allege violation of the Texas Workers' Compensation Anti-Retaliation Act. He also claimed Baptist discriminated by not providing a light duty position after his doctor released him with restrictions. The jury initially found in Casanova's favor, awarding significant damages for lost wages and mental anguish. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no evidence of non-uniform application of Baptist's leave policy or discrimination, as the light duty policy was only for on-the-job injuries and no suitable position was available.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationAbsentee Policy EnforcementLight Duty AccommodationCausation StandardLegal Sufficiency ReviewTexas Labor Code § 451.001Appellate ReversalMedical Work RestrictionsEmployee Leave Policy
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 16,249 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