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

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. 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

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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2020

Wiski v. Verizon N.Y., Inc.

The plaintiffs appealed an order denying their cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability for a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation. The case involves Wieslaw Wiski, who was injured after falling from a scaffold during asbestos abatement work on premises owned by Intergate Manhattan, LLC, under a contract with Sabey IGM Construction, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. This failure stemmed from a triable issue of fact regarding whether the object that fell required securing and the injured plaintiff's admission to not using a provided safety hoist.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffold FallAsbestos AbatementSummary JudgmentLiabilityFalling ObjectSafety DeviceHoistAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 178 AD3d 1178
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2019

Matter of Mundy v. Verizon N.Y., Inc.

The claimant sustained a work-related knee injury, and the employer sought reimbursement for wages paid during his disability. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded a schedule loss of use (SLU) but did not address the employer's reimbursement request. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision and declined to address the reimbursement, citing the employer's failure to raise the issue adequately before the WCLJ or in its initial application for review. The Appellate Division modified the Board's decision, finding that the Board should have exercised its continuing jurisdiction under Workers' Compensation Law § 123 to prevent a substantial windfall to the claimant, as the employer's reimbursement claim was timely and the claimant had conceded entitlement. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Division's decision.

Workers' CompensationReimbursement ClaimSchedule Loss of UseEmployer WagesDisability BenefitsContinuing JurisdictionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionJudicial ReviewCase Remittal
References
15
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. ADJ916063
Regular
Dec 24, 2010

TERRY SCUDDER vs. VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC., SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant Verizon California, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition. This action was taken due to the need for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications related to this matter should be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationOPINION AND ORDERVERIZON CALIFORNIASEDGWICK CMSSTATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSFACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUESJUST AND REASONED DECISIONFURTHER PROCEEDINGSDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 8,858 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