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. ADJ16354315; ADJ17880338
Regular
Apr 04, 2025

ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ vs. CITY OF WATSONVILLE, LWP CLAIMS, INC.

Armando Rodriguez, the applicant, filed a Petition for Reconsideration after the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied his claims of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a and Serious and Willful Misconduct against his employer, the City of Watsonville. The applicant alleged discrimination following work injuries, citing a written reprimand and a purported plan of retaliation. However, the WCJ found no direct link between the work injury and the reprimand, noting that performance issues predated the injury, and that the employer followed medical restrictions. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition, concluding that the original findings were supported by the evidence and that the decision was timely issued.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 590960-day ruleEAMSTransmission to Appeals BoardReport and RecommendationAOE/COELabor Code section 132aSerious and Willful Misconduct
References
9
Case No. ADJ9318230
Regular
May 11, 2016

BALDEMAR BARAJAS vs. NEWPORTMESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves an applicant claiming a psychiatric injury stemming from an employer's alleged unfair treatment after his work bus sustained minor damage. The employer argued the resulting written reprimand was a good faith personnel action, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the Judge's report, which found the employer failed to prove the personnel action was undertaken in good faith. The WCAB gave great weight to the Judge's credibility determination of the applicant and found no substantial evidence to overturn it.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCredibility DeterminationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Psychiatric InjuryBus DriverNewport-Mesa Unified School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesGood Faith Personnel Action
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

In re the Claim of Heath

The claimant, a probationary factory worker, was discharged for failing to wear safety glasses in a designated factory area, violating a known employer safety policy. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The record indicated that the claimant had been informed of the safety policy during orientation and had received two prior reprimands for similar infractions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the finding of misconduct. The court also noted that the company handbook's requirement for a written warning before termination did not apply to probationary employees.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductSafety Policy ViolationProbationary EmployeeSafety GlassesDisqualificationEmployer PolicyWorkplace SafetyAffirmed DecisionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarado v. Jeffrey, Inc.

Plaintiff Eduardo Alvarado, a gay, Hispanic man, sued his former employer Just Jeffrey and its owner Nordstrom, Inc. for alleged racial and sexual orientation discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under federal, New York State, and New York City human rights laws. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court found that Alvarado failed to present sufficient evidence that the workplace conditions were objectively severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile environment or that his discharge was constructive. Furthermore, his retaliation claim based on a written reprimand lacked sufficient evidence of pretext.

DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeRetaliationRacial DiscriminationSexual Orientation DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWorkplace DisputeSpoliation of Evidence
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abboud v. Cnty. of Onondaga

Noel Abboud, a corrections officer of Arab ancestry, sued the County of Onondaga and several Department of Correction employees for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and New York State law. Abboud alleged ongoing ethnic harassment, including derogatory comments, adverse employment actions like written reprimands, and denial of firearms training. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing statute of limitations and lack of merit, but the court found some compelling circumstances. The court partially denied the motion, allowing hostile work environment claims and certain retaliation and discrimination claims related to firearms qualification, a medical examination, and a restricted duty assignment to proceed. Most other claims, including conspiracy claims and some state law claims, were dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964New York State Human Rights LawSection 1981 ClaimsSection 1983 Claims
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amabile v. City of Buffalo

Estelle Amabile fell and was injured due to a defective sidewalk in the City of Buffalo, caused by a protruding stop-sign post and cracked concrete. She and her husband sued the City, which moved for summary judgment citing a lack of prior written notice as required by the City Charter. Plaintiffs argued for a "constructive notice" exception, but the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's denial, granting summary judgment to the City. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that constructive notice cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of prior written notice for sidewalk defects, thus upholding legislative intent to protect municipalities from liability without actual written notice.

Municipal liabilitySidewalk defectPrior written noticeConstructive noticeSummary judgmentStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewNegligencePersonal injuryBuffalo City Charter
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Becker v. Churchville-Chili Central School District

Kathy Ormsby, a bus driver for Churchville-Chili Central School District, accused fellow driver David Becker of sexual harassment. Following an investigation by Assistant Superintendent Richard Castaldo, Becker was found guilty of creating a hostile work environment and reprimanded. Becker subsequently initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge this finding and have the reprimand removed from his record. Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, presiding over the case, determined that Becker's conduct, while potentially annoying and persistent, lacked the sexual or gender-based content required to legally constitute sexual harassment under an objective standard. Consequently, the court granted Becker's petition, ruling that the District's disciplinary action was arbitrary and capricious, and ordered the removal of the reprimand.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentCPLR Article 78Objective StandardSubjective ExperienceWorkplace ConductEmployee DisciplineUnwelcome AdvancesReprimandJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. CA 13-00579
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2014

PULVER, MICHELLE v. CITY OF FULTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

Plaintiff Michelle Pulver commenced a personal injury action against the City of Fulton Department of Public Works and the City of Fulton after she tripped in a hole covered by plywood near a sidewalk. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing lack of prior written notice. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability, alleging the City's affirmative negligence. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding no prior written notice but potential factual issues regarding affirmative negligence. The Appellate Division modified the order by granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint. The court held that the prior written notice requirement applied and that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the City engaged in affirmative acts of negligence by creating the defective condition or placing the plywood.

Personal InjuryMunicipal LiabilitySidewalk DefectPrior Written NoticeAffirmative NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPlywood CoverHole HazardOswego County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1978

Cortlandt v. E. F. Hutton, Inc.

Plaintiff Evelyn Cortlandt, a securities trader, sued E. F. Hutton & Co., Inc. and its employee Henry P. Perrine under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. She alleged false representations regarding her margin account, unauthorized sales of securities to meet margin calls, and erroneous investment advice. Cortlandt claimed an oral agreement that her account would not be subject to margin calls, contradicting a written 'Customer\'s Agreement' she signed. The court found her testimony regarding her intent to avoid the written agreement incredible, upholding the written contract under the parol evidence rule. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that Hutton acted as an 'investment adviser' as defined by the 1940 Act, dismissing that claim. With no federal claims remaining, the court dismissed the entire action, granting the defendant's motion.

Securities FraudInvestment Advisers ActSecurities Exchange ActMargin AccountParol Evidence RuleContract DisputeBrokerage FirmCustomer AgreementDismissalFederal Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gorman v. Town of Huntington

This case involves Norma and Hugh Gorman suing the Town of Huntington for injuries sustained from a sidewalk trip and fall. The core dispute centers on the Town's defense of lacking prior written notice of the defective sidewalk condition, as required by local ordinances. However, the plaintiffs argued that the Town should be estopped from asserting this defense because a municipal employee instructed a member of the public to send notice to the Department of Engineering Services (DES), which managed sidewalk maintenance and its own record-keeping system. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of the Town's motion for summary judgment, agreeing that the Town was estopped. This decision established a new, narrow exception to strict prior written notice statutes, based on the Town's actions and the public's reliance, and awarded partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, dismissing the Town's affirmative defenses regarding prior written notice.

Prior Written NoticeMunicipal LiabilitySidewalk DefectEstoppelSummary JudgmentNegligenceTrip and FallDelegation of DutiesGovernmental Immunity ExceptionsPublic Safety
References
66
Showing 1-10 of 294 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