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. ADJ5631403 ADJ8129890 ADJ9031437 ADJ7129072 ADJ8214161
Regular
Aug 12, 2019

VALERIE SPENCER vs. MENDON AND MENDON, INC., dba MENDON'S NURSERY

This case concerns Valerie Spencer's claim that her employer, Mendon and Mendon, Inc., violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating her employment due to her workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board rescinded a prior finding, concluding that the employer's actions constituted discrimination under section 132a. This decision was based on the close temporal proximity between the notice of representation and termination, and the employer's failure to establish a legitimate business reason. Issues regarding penalty amounts, lost wages, and reinstatement are deferred for further proceedings.

Labor Code 132aDiscriminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ClaimTerminationNotice of RepresentationPrima Facie CaseBusiness Realities DefensePretextLost Wages
References
0
Case No. ADJ5631403 MF ADJ8129890 ADJ9031437 ADJ8214161 ADJ7129072
Regular
Oct 25, 2013

VALERIE SPENCER vs. MENDON AND MENDON, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION BY SEDGWICK FOR FREMONT INSURANCE, In Liquidation, CLARENDON By AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This is an order granting a defendant's petition for reconsideration in multiple workers' compensation cases filed by Valerie Spencer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found reconsideration necessary due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. All future filings must be submitted in writing directly to the Board's Commissioners in San Francisco, not to district offices or electronically. The Board will issue a decision after reconsideration following further proceedings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationReconsideration GRANTEDCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONFREMONT INSURANCEIn LiquidationSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDEMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANYVALERIE SPENCERADJ5631403 MF
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2002

O'Connor v. Spencer (1997) Investment Ltd. Partnership

Patrick O'Connor was injured after falling from a six-feet-tall Baker scaffold while performing demolition work for GTI Harbor & Trucking & Rigging, Inc., on premises owned by Spencer (1997) Investment Ltd. Partnership and its general partner, Spencer Realty, Inc. O'Connor and his wife subsequently commenced an action against the appellants, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing workers' compensation exclusivity and non-liability under the Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court denied their motion in its entirety. On appeal, the order was modified: claims based on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 were dismissed, while the denial of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims was affirmed.

Scaffold AccidentDemolition InjuriesWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityLabor Law ViolationsCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Division DecisionPremises LiabilitySafety RegulationsGravity-Related Accident
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arigo v. Spencer

Plaintiff Joseph R. Arigo, hired by defendant Randy J. Spencer to replace a furnace, fell from a ladder while installing a chimney liner, sustaining injuries. Plaintiffs initiated legal action, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), alongside common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and denied defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the order was reversed; the appellate court found factual disputes precluding summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, questioning whether the ladder failed or if plaintiff's conduct was the sole cause of injury. Additionally, it was determined that the Supreme Court erred in not dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the alleged Industrial Code violations either were not a proximate cause of the injuries or were not applicable to the case's facts.

Ladder accidentConstruction site injurySummary judgmentAppellate reviewProximate causeIndustrial Code regulationsPersonal injuryWorker safetyFalling from heightStatutory interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 1985

Linares v. Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Time Moving and Storage (employer) and Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp. (vehicle lessor), in a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the plaintiff's exclusive remedy against both the employer and the vehicle owner, as the injury occurred while the plaintiff was a passenger in an employer-leased vehicle driven by a co-employee. The court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint and bill of particulars, citing the significant delay (nearly four years after inception of the lawsuit) and completion of all discovery.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyCo-employee NegligenceLeased Vehicle LiabilityAppellate AffirmationMotion to Amend PleadingsBill of ParticularsDelay in Litigation
References
5
Case No. CA 14-01911
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

REGENCY OAKS CORPORATION v. NORMAN-SPENCER MCKERNAN, INC.

Regency Oaks Corporation, a professional employer organization, filed a fraud action against Norman-Spencer McKernan, Inc., an insurance agency. The plaintiff alleged that an employee of the defendant provided a falsified workers’ compensation insurance policy and a certificate of liability insurance, directing premium payments to his private company, PIM, under the false pretense that PIM was a division of the defendant. After receiving a penalty from the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, plaintiff received a forged letter confirming coverage. The defendant's employee was later terminated for embezzlement from another client. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, concluding that plaintiff reasonably relied on the employee's apparent authority.

FraudApparent AuthorityWorkers' Compensation InsuranceEmployee MisconductSummary JudgmentInsurance Agency LiabilityProfessional Employer OrganizationFalsified DocumentsAgency LawAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spencer v. Casavilla

This memorandum opinion and order addresses a civil action filed by Ernestine Spencer and Samuel B. Spencer, Jr., parents of the deceased Samuel Benjamin Spencer, III, against four individuals and "John Does." The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages for a racially motivated assault in May 1986 that led to their son's death. The defendants had been previously convicted in criminal proceedings related to the incident. Plaintiffs asserted federal jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985(3), and 1986, alongside state law claims. The court, presided over by Judge Haight, analyzed whether the alleged private conduct constituted viable federal claims under these statutes. The decision concluded that private, non-contractual conduct without state action did not support a claim under § 1981, nor did the complaint allege a federally protected right necessary for a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the pendent state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Civil RightsRacial DiscriminationPrivate ConductState Action42 U.S.C. 198142 U.S.C. 1985ConspiracyAssaultMurderFederal Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spencer v. Lavoie

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Darrell Spencer, Katrina Forney, Leona Spencer, and Steven Petchenik. Plaintiffs alleged deprivation of federally protected rights arising from the temporary removal of Darrell and Katrina from their home by the Chenango County Department of Social Services. Defendants Kathryne Lavoie (caseworker), Stanley J. Kimiecik, Hugh Comfort, and Mary Comfort (foster parents) moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for Lavoie and Kimiecik, finding Lavoie's actions in removing the children were objectively reasonable under emergency circumstances and Kimiecik lacked personal involvement. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the Comforts. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the Third Amended Complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

civil rightsqualified immunitysummary judgmentchild removaldue processparental rightsemergency circumstancessocial serviceschild abuseneglect
References
22
Case No. 06-CV2637
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2012

Spencer v. International Shoppes, Inc.

Plaintiff Arleigh Spencer initiated an action against International Shoppes, Inc. and Michael Halpern, alleging race and age-based discrimination and retaliation. While many discrimination claims were dismissed, claims of retaliatory commencement of litigation under Title VII, NYHRL, and § 1981 remained. Defendants moved for a second summary judgment, contending that their partially successful state court defamation lawsuit against Spencer precluded a finding of retaliatory intent. The Court denied the motion, ruling that the 'well-founded lawsuit' standard from NLRA cases was not applicable to employment discrimination retaliation claims and that, even if it were, Defendants' success on only one of eight claims did not negate the possibility of retaliatory motive, particularly given the timing and high damages sought in the initial state court action.

Retaliation ClaimEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIINew York Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Section 1981State Court LawsuitFrivolous LitigationPretextCausal Connection
References
47
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02855 [183 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2020

Spencer v. Term Fulton Realty Corp.

Plaintiff, a carpenter, was injured while working when a cart he was pushing got stuck on iron rods and debris, pinning and severing his index finger. He brought claims under Labor Law § 200, § 241 (6), and common-law negligence against the defendants. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing claims against Bravo Builders, LLC. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding the cited Industrial Code sections inapplicable to the incident. However, the court modified the order to reinstate the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Bravo, determining that Bravo failed to establish a prima facie lack of constructive notice regarding the dangerous worksite conditions, especially given its contractual obligation for daily inspections.

Construction accidentLabor LawPremises liabilitySummary judgmentConstructive noticeIndustrial CodeComparative negligenceDangerous conditionWorksite safetyAppellate review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 61 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