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

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benjamin v. Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC

This case involves Patrice Benjamin and Brenda Thomas (Plaintiffs) suing Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC (Defendant) for alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the New York Human Rights Law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Defendant filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, while the Plaintiffs cross-moved to amend their complaint. The court dismissed Brenda Thomas's Title VII and NYSHRL claims entirely and limited Patrice Benjamin's Title VII and NYSHRL claims for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment to actions occurring after December 21, 2002. The court also dismissed the Plaintiffs' Section 1983/Bivens claims but denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss Benjamin's ADA claim. Finally, the Plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend the complaint was granted in part, allowing for the inclusion of a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 cause of action for both plaintiffs, along with specific, limited claims for Benjamin in the amended complaint.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VIINew York Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. § 198342 U.S.C. § 1981Judgment on the PleadingsAmending Complaint
References
28
Case No. No. 8
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Ersin Konkur v. Utica Academy of Science Charter School

Plaintiff Ersin Konkur, a math teacher, sued his former employer, Utica Academy of Science Charter School, and High Way Education, Inc. (doing business as Turkish Cultural Center), alleging he was coerced into making 'kickback' payments from his wages in violation of Labor Law § 198-b. The central legal question on appeal was whether Labor Law § 198-b contains an implied private right of action for employees. The New York Court of Appeals concluded that the legislature did not intend to create such a freestanding private right of action, highlighting the existing robust enforcement mechanisms available through criminal prosecution and administrative action by the Labor Commissioner. Consequently, the Appellate Division's decision to dismiss the complaint against High Way Education, Inc. was affirmed.

Wage KickbacksImplied Private Right of ActionLabor LawNew York Court of AppealsEmployment LawStatutory InterpretationEnforcement MechanismsWage ClaimsAdministrative EnforcementCriminal Prosecution
References
26
Case No. ADJ4642991 (VNO 0556266)
Regular
Sep 09, 2011

## RICHARD ANTONETTE, vs. VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES; MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review a proposed $\$4,600$ compromise and release agreement. The agreement attempts to settle applicant Richard Antonette's claim, waiving future medical treatment and noting a substantial temporary disability overpayment, but the WCAB lacks sufficient information for approval. Citing *Tensfeldt v. WCAB*, the WCAB emphasizes that a fraud conviction does not automatically bar all future benefits, requiring an individualized assessment of the facts. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level to determine the adequacy of the settlement and any necessary further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseWorkers' Compensation FraudInsurance Code Section 1871.4(a)(1)Labor Code Section 3207Tensfeldt v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Case-by-case determinationIndustrial injuryMedical evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wickwire v. State University of New York Health Science Center

The petitioner, a permanent employee of the Health Science Center (HSC), was dismissed under Civil Service Law § 71 after sustaining an employment-related back injury. His physician indicated permanent incapacity. HSC attempted to terminate him, but the court found procedural deficiencies. Specifically, HSC failed to prove proper service of notice and did not provide the required 30-day notice period. Furthermore, the termination letter did not fully inform the petitioner of all his rights under 4 NYCRR 5.9(d). As a result, the court granted the petitioner's CPLR article 78 petition, ruling the termination ineffective and ordering his reinstatement retroactive to March 13, 1996.

Civil Service LawWrongful TerminationDue ProcessNotice RequirementsReinstatementWorkers' Compensation LeavePermanent DisabilityCPLR Article 78Statutory InterpretationProcedural Deficiency
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownstone Publishers, Inc. v. New York City Department of Buildings

The petitioner publishing company sought information from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in a computer tape format. The DOB offered the information in hard copy, citing no obligation to accommodate format preference, despite the petitioner's claim of substantial cost and difficulty in re-digitizing hard copies. The court, noting New York's Public Officers Law, emphasized the requirement for 'full' or 'maximum' access to records, which includes computer tapes or discs. It determined that providing over a million pages in hard copy would not constitute reasonable or maximum access. The court found no significant hardship for the DOB to provide the data electronically at the petitioner's expense. Consequently, the CPLR article 78 petition was granted, directing the DOB to provide the electronic records in computer tape format.

Freedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawInformation FormatElectronic RecordsHard CopyData AccessCPLR Article 78Government TransparencyCommercial InterestsNew York City Department of Buildings
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2001

Claim of Walby v. Volt Information Science

Claimant, injured at work in 1996 and undergoing surgery in 1998, returned to full-time work before being laid off in June 1998 due to a plant closure. Despite partial disability from her back injury, the Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim for reduced earnings, attributing the wage loss solely to economic conditions. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding no evidence that her physical limitations prevented her full-time return to her previous occupation or contributed to her unsuccessful job search after the layoff.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsPartial DisabilityEconomic LayoffCausation of Wage LossJob SearchTreating Physician LimitationsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationBack Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ3494615 (MON 0352506) ADJ2492403 (MON 0352508)
Regular
Dec 28, 2009

MARCELA LIZARDO vs. VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The WCJ's Order seeking a supplemental medical report is not a final order subject to reconsideration. The petition for removal is denied due to lack of showing substantial prejudice or irreparable injury.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff CalendarSupplemental ReportPanel QMEReasonableness and NecessityFinal OrderSubstantive RightsIrreparable Harm
References
5
Case No. SAC 0351452
Regular
Nov 20, 2007

TEJINDER K. BATH vs. VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES; HARTFOD CASUALTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its award of $1,237.50 in attorney's fees to the applicant. The defendant argued that Labor Code section 5801 does not authorize fees for responding to a Supreme Court petition for review and that the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's petition precluded the Board from awarding fees. The Board affirmed its decision, finding that services rendered in answering the Supreme Court petition were "in connection with" the initial petition for writ of review, thereby qualifying the applicant's attorney for fees under section 5801.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVoit Information SciencesHartford CasualtyTejinder K. BathOpinion and Order Denying Reconsiderationattorneys feespetition for reviewSupreme Court of CaliforniaLabor Code section 5801jurisdiction
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 964 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