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. 2022 NY Slip Op 02128 [203 AD3d 1167]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2022

Matter of Walker v. Sterkowicz-Walker

This case involves a dispute over parental access rights between divorced parents, Thomas Walker (father) and Janet Sterkowicz-Walker (mother), concerning their younger child. The Family Court initially granted the father's petition for sole legal and residential custody of the child. The mother appealed an order that limited her parental access to written letters and weekly one-hour telephone or video sessions, contingent on the child's consent. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that there was a sound and substantial basis in the record to limit the mother's parental access. This determination was based on evidence of the child's fear and anxiety regarding parental access, supported by testimony from the father, the child's therapist, and observations by social workers.

Custody modificationParental accessChild's best interestFamily Court ActAppellate reviewChild psychologyVirtual visitationParental rightsChild's consentDetriment to child
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Walker

Chief Judge McAvoy considered the motion by Tyrone Walker and Tony Walker to dismiss Count One CCE charges against them, based on the government's alleged failure to prove the 'organizer, supervisor, or manager' element. The court meticulously reviewed testimonial evidence regarding individuals allegedly managed or organized by each defendant in a cocaine distribution network. Judge McAvoy concluded there was a 'minimally sufficient basis' for a rational jury to find that both Walkers managed several individuals, thus satisfying the CCE elements. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and the identified individuals will be presented to the jury as potential managees.

Continuing Criminal EnterpriseDrug TraffickingCCE ChargesMotion to DismissSufficiency of EvidenceOrganizerSupervisorManagerCocaine DistributionFederal Court
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00484
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2022

Walker v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC

Plaintiff William Walker was injured while working at a pharmaceutical plant owned by GlaxoSmithKline, LLC and Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. He filed a workers' compensation claim, which was controverted by GlaxoSmithKline's carrier, Old Republic, arguing Walker was an employee of Manpower, Inc. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge subsequently discharged Old Republic from the proceeding. Walker then sued the GlaxoSmithKline entities, who raised a workers' compensation affirmative defense. The Appellate Division reversed a lower court order, holding that judicial estoppel prevented the defendants from asserting this defense given their prior inconsistent position in the workers' compensation proceeding, and reinstated the plaintiff's complaint.

Judicial EstoppelWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmative DefenseUntimely AnswerSpecial Employee DoctrineEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardInsurance Carrier Liability
References
41
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05344 [220 AD3d 554]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2023

Walker v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order denying defendants' motion to dismiss claims of discrimination, retaliation, and gender-motivated violence. The court found that a prior federal court dismissal of discrimination claims did not preclude state HRL claims due to New York's lenient notice pleading standards. Plaintiff Kellie Walker sufficiently pleaded claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting. Specifically, she alleged discriminatory scrutiny, exclusion from meetings, verbal abuse, and physical assault by a male colleague, as well as retaliatory conduct after filing complaints. The court also upheld aiding and abetting claims against Sharon Gallo-Kotcher and claims under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentHuman Rights LawGender-Motivated ViolenceCollateral EstoppelPleading StandardsEmployment DiscriminationAppellate AffirmationMotion to Dismiss
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee-Walker v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

The plaintiff, Jeena Lee-Walker, a New York City public school teacher, sued the New York City Department of Education and several school officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She alleged retaliation in violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, stemming from a lesson she taught on the Central Park Five and subsequent discussions with supervisors. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion, concluding that the plaintiff's speech, made pursuant to her official duties as a teacher, was not protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity due to the unsettled legal question regarding the application of Garcetti v. Ceballos to classroom instruction.

First AmendmentRetaliationPublic Employee SpeechAcademic FreedomQualified ImmunityMotion to DismissSchool LawFree SpeechEmployment Law42 U.S.C. 1983
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Columbia University in the City of New York

George D. Walker, a former security guard at Columbia University, sued his employer and labor union for various causes of action including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful discharge, age discrimination under New York Human Rights Law, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Walker was mandatorily retired in December 1978 at age 65, under the terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement. A new agreement, signed in July 1979, retroactively extended the mandatory retirement age to 70 as of January 1, 1979. Walker claimed he was unaware of this change until late 1987 or early 1988. The defendants, Columbia University and the Union, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Walker's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court found that a six-month statute of limitations applied to the hybrid § 301/fair representation claim and that Walker should have reasonably known about the alleged breach in 1978 or 1979, given the union's publicized meetings regarding contract negotiations. The court also denied any basis for tolling the statute of limitations, as there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment and plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the complaint, ruling that all of plaintiff's claims were time-barred.

Age DiscriminationWrongful DischargeBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationFederal Labor LawHybrid § 301 Claim
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. AMR Services Corp.

Plaintiff Sylvia Walker sued Defendant AMR Services Corporation (AMRS) for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Walker alleged that her supervisor, Kenneth St. Louis, subjected her to unwanted sexual advances and retaliatory actions, including denying time off and altering her work conditions. After Walker complained internally, she was terminated nine days later following alleged fabricated insubordination incidents. AMRS moved for summary judgment, arguing the conduct was not severe or unwelcome, that they took prompt remedial action, and that there was no causal link for the retaliation claim. The court denied AMRS's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding hostile work environment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliatory discharge. The court also upheld plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationSupervisor MisconductWrongful TerminationCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. Dkt. # 1, 41
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Poole

Petitioner Frederick Walker filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his 2000 conviction for robbery and assault in Monroe County. He alleged improper show-up identification procedures and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court addressed four grounds: the suggestiveness of two show-up procedures, insufficient evidence for attempted robbery, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court denied the claim regarding the second show-up on the merits, found the claims concerning the first show-up and evidentiary sufficiency to be procedurally defaulted, and dismissed the ineffective assistance claims for lack of deficient performance or prejudice. Consequently, Walker's request for a writ of habeas corpus was denied and his petitions dismissed.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselShow-up IdentificationDue ProcessRobberyAssaultAttempted RobberyProcedural DefaultExhaustion of State RemediesState Conviction Challenge
References
44
Case No. ADJ282767 (AHM 0149033)
Regular
Oct 03, 2011

GARY WALKER vs. HOUSTON INDEMNITY, TEXANS, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award to applicant Gary Walker. The original award found Walker sustained industrial injury as a professional athlete, resulting in 92% permanent disability and need for further medical treatment. The defendant's argument that an employment contract prohibited this California claim, including choice of law and venue, was rejected. This contractual issue was not raised at trial, thus waived, and the Board also asserted its own jurisdiction.

Industrial injuryProfessional athletePermanent disabilityFurther medical treatmentEmployment contractChoice of lawVenueJurisdictionPersonal jurisdictionSubject matter jurisdiction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker ex rel. T.W. v. City of New York

Parents Junior Walker and Thaera Bullen-Walker sued ACS employees and the City of New York, alleging civil rights violations stemming from the 2009 removal of their children. Their claims included due process and First Amendment violations, unlawful seizure, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing claims against most individuals for lack of personal involvement and against the City for failure to establish municipal liability. Caseworkers Robinson and White were granted qualified immunity, as their decision to initiate Family Court proceedings was objectively reasonable given the child's allegations and subsequent judicial findings of neglect. Ultimately, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, the plaintiffs' motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Civil Rights ActionChild Protective ServicesDue ProcessFirst Amendment RetaliationFourth Amendment SeizureMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentMunicipal Liability
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 72 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