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. 02-CV-6628
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Verizon Wireless

This Decision and Order consolidates three discrimination actions brought by former Verizon Wireless employees Karen Davis, LaTayna McDonald, and Karin Sams against Verizon Wireless and Adecco (for McDonald). Plaintiffs alleged claims of sexual harassment, gender/race discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, primarily concerning supervisors Greg Callaghan and Jeremy Schaut. The Court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part, dismissing all claims by Sams and all claims against Adecco. For Davis and McDonald against Verizon, claims related to race-based hostile work environment will proceed to a jury trial, along with McDonald's retaliatory failure to hire claim, while other retaliation claims were dismissed. The Court found issues of fact regarding the race-based hostile work environment claims for Davis and McDonald against Verizon, but dismissed all claims by Sams for lack of sufficient evidence.

DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawQuid Pro QuoEmployment Law
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verizon New York Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission

Verizon New York Inc. commenced a special proceeding against the New York State Public Service Commission and other respondents. Verizon sought to overturn a determination allowing public disclosure of certain documents, which Verizon claimed were trade secrets or confidential commercial information, under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The documents in question related to Verizon's network costs and its methods and procedures for its wireless service, Verizon Voice Link (WL). The court reviewed the Secretary's and RAO's determinations, which found some information to be trade secrets but still required a showing of 'substantial injury' for exemption. The court ruled that once information is deemed a trade secret under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d), no further showing of substantial competitive injury is required for exemption. Consequently, the court granted in part the petition, exempting specific cost information and several M&P documents from disclosure, while denying exemption for three M&P documents.

FOIL ExemptionTrade Secret ProtectionConfidential Commercial InformationPublic Officers Law § 87 (2) (d)Substantial Competitive InjuryStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Determination ReviewCPLR Article 78Wireless ServicesCost Information Disclosure
References
47
Case No. ADJ9606696
Regular
Oct 12, 2018

JORGE LOPEZ vs. VERIZON WIRELESS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jorge Lopez's Petition for Reconsideration against Verizon Wireless. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's (WCJ) report and opinion, giving great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination of witnesses. No substantial evidence was presented to warrant overturning the WCJ's decision. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.substantial evidenceOpinion and Order DenyingADJ9606696Riverside District OfficeJorge LopezVerizon Wireless
References
1
Case No. ADJ7365256
Regular
Dec 12, 2011

DONALD McDUFFIE vs. VERIZON WIRELESS INC, SEDGWICK

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Donald McDuffie against Verizon Wireless Inc. and Sedgwick. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed McDuffie's petition because it was untimely, filed more than 25 days after the administrative law judge's September 15, 2011 decision. The Board also noted that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code § 5903Code of Civil Procedure § 1013Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDismissalDeidra E. LoweJoseph M. MillerSusan V. Hamilton
References
0
Case No. ANA 0405476
Regular
Apr 04, 2008

RESEANNE RAY vs. VERIZON WIRELESS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMEN SERVICES

This case involves Applicant Roseanne Ray's challenge to the calculated average weekly wage (AWW) and resulting temporary disability indemnity rate in her workers' compensation claim against Verizon Wireless. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding a clerical error in the original award and a mutual mistake regarding the AWW calculation. The Board amended the award to increase the temporary disability indemnity rate to \$830.78 per week based on applicant's pre-injury earnings, finding she was underpaid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationStipulations and Request for AwardTemporary Total DisabilityAverage Weekly WagesMutual Mistake of FactClerical ErrorIndemnity RatePermanent DisabilityMedical-Legal Expenses
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Plaintiff Bianca Fleming sued her former employer, Verizon New York, Inc., for employment discrimination under Title VII, ADA, HRL, and NYCHRL. Fleming alleged racial and gender discrimination, a sexually hostile work environment, and failure to accommodate her medical condition from 1998 to 2001. She also claimed retaliation for her complaints. Verizon moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and statute of limitations. The court granted Verizon's motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain Title VII claims for retaliation and hostile work environment, and dismissing other claims as time-barred, while allowing specific continuing violation claims to proceed.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexually Hostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawAdministrative Exhaustion
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meeks v. Verizon New York, Inc.

The claimant, an employee of Verizon New York, Inc., sustained a work-related injury and received both workers' compensation benefits and payments from a Sickness and Accident Disability Benefit Plan. Upon being granted a schedule loss of use award, Verizon sought full reimbursement for the advanced payments. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision that Verizon was entitled to full reimbursement, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law § 25 was not preempted by ERISA and that the Plan allowed for reimbursement from collateral sources. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Plan's intent to prevent double recoveries and that any further assertions regarding the Plan administrator's discretion or fiduciary duties must be addressed in a federal ERISA action.

Workers' Compensation LawReimbursementERISA PreemptionSchedule Loss of UseSickness and Accident Disability Benefit PlanCollateral SourceDouble RecoveryVerizon New York Inc.Appellate ReviewBenefit Plan Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 525867
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2018

Matter of Murtha v. Verizon N.Y. Inc.

Claimant Bryon J. Murtha sustained injuries while working for Verizon New York Inc. and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A WCLJ established the claim and later denied authorization for surgery, assessing a penalty against claimant's counsel, Grey and Grey, LLP, for dilatory tactics. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld the denial of surgery but found the WCLJ improperly assessed the penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (3) (c), instead assessing it under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) for the firm's alleged failure to ensure physicians' availability for depositions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's assessment of a penalty against Grey and Grey, LLP, finding that Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) does not authorize penalties against counsel, and even if it did, substantial evidence did not support the claim that the firm was responsible for the physicians' non-compliance with subpoenas, as enforcement was the carrier's responsibility.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMonetary Penalty AssessmentDilatory TacticsAttorney MisconductStatutory AuthorizationAppellate ReviewMedical DepositionsSubpoena EnforcementCarrier ResponsibilityClaimant Counsel
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Verizon New York, Inc.

The petitioner, Vince McLeod, initially filed a petition in New York State Supreme Court against Verizon New York, Inc., alleging wrongful termination and that his union, Communications Workers of America (CWA), breached its duty of fair representation. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. Verizon moved to dismiss the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that McLeod's claims were preempted by LMRA § 301 and were time-barred, and that his constitutional claims lacked merit. The Court granted Verizon's motion, dismissing the case in its entirety, finding the hybrid LMRA § 301 claim to be time-barred and the constitutional claims abandoned or without merit. The Court, however, denied Verizon's request for Rule 11 sanctions due to procedural non-compliance.

Wrongful TerminationDuty of Fair RepresentationHybrid Section 301 ClaimLabor Management Relations ActMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessRule 11 Sanctions
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lightwave Communications, LLC v. Verizon Services Corp.

Lightwave Communications, LLC petitioned the court to vacate parts of an arbitration award against Verizon Services Corp. for billing inaccuracies, citing manifest disregard of federal law by the arbitrator. Verizon moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the parties were non-diverse, federal law did not create Lightwave's cause of action, and the motion did not raise a substantial federal question. The court, presided over by Judge Rakoff, examined Lightwave's claims that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded federal telecommunications laws (47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202, 251, 252). The court found that Lightwave's examples did not demonstrate a "key part" or "substantial" federal question to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, Verizon's motion to dismiss was granted, and a previously issued temporary injunction against Verizon was dissolved.

Federal Arbitration ActSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionArbitration Award VacaturTelecommunications BillingInterconnection AgreementManifest Disregard of LawMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(1)Second Circuit Precedent
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 95 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