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. 866 F.Supp.2d 196
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2011

Howard v. MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Wendell Howard, an African-American locomotive engineer trainee, sued his former employer, MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad, for racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following his termination from a training program. Howard alleged discriminatory treatment by his instructors regarding test answers and derogatory remarks, and that his termination for leaving his worksite without proper authorization and insubordination was pretextual. He also claimed other non-African-American trainees were not disciplined similarly. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MTA Metro-North, finding that Howard failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. Subsequently, Howard filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), citing alleged mistakes, fraud by the defendants, and newly discovered evidence concerning other trainees. The court denied this motion, concluding that Howard's arguments were either rearguments of prior points, lacked clear and convincing evidence of fraud, or the "new evidence" was either available during discovery or not sufficiently convincing to warrant relief.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantMotion to Vacate JudgmentRule 60(b)Pretext for DiscriminationLocomotive Engineer Training Program
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. National Educ. Ass'n of New York

Plaintiff Carole Howard sued defendants National Education Association of New York (NEANY) and Hartford Life Insurance Company after Hartford Life denied accidental death benefits following the death of her husband, Richard Howard. Mr. Howard, an NEANY employee, died suddenly from ventricular arrhythmia, which Hartford Life attributed to heart disease, not an accident. The Court conducted a bench trial and performed a de novo review of the policy's "accidental" definition under ERISA. Despite testimony about Mr. Howard's significant job-related stress, the Plaintiff's medical experts could not definitively link his death to an accidental cause, listing factors like age, cholesterol, hypertension, and obesity. Concluding that the Plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption of death by natural causes, the Court found in favor of the Defendants on all claims.

ERISAAccidental Death PolicyInsurance BenefitsHeart AttackVentricular ArrhythmiaCoronary AtherosclerosisMyocardial InfarctionWork-Related StressMedical EvidenceDe Novo Review
References
23
Case No. CV-24-1279
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Howard

Claimant Michael Howard appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his request to amend his claim to include bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Howard sustained multiple injuries in a 2018 assault, and his claim was later amended for various conditions. His treating physician, Ranga Krishna, diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 2021, linking it to the 2018 accident. However, the carrier's consultant found a bilateral wrist sprain but no causally related carpal tunnel syndrome after examinations in 2021 and 2023, citing a lack of corroborative clinical findings despite EMG results. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board credited the carrier's consultant, denying the amendment due to insufficient credible evidence of causation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its factual determinations and assessments of medical witness credibility, which were supported by substantial evidence.

Carpal Tunnel SyndromeCausation DisputeMedical Opinion ConflictCredibility of Medical WitnessesSubstantial Evidence ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board AffirmanceClaim Amendment DenialBilateral Wrist InjuryElectromyography FindingsAppellant Burden of Proof
References
8
Case No. 1099
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Stature Electric, Inc.

The court ruled on a motion to strike the supplemental appendix and specific sections of the brief submitted by respondent David W. Howard. The motion was granted to the extent that the material in the brief referencing the supplemental appendix is deemed stricken. However, the motion to strike was otherwise denied.

Motion to strikeSupplemental appendixBriefCourt procedureProcedural ruling
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1976

Claim of Slotnick v. Howard Stores Corp.

This appeal challenges a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision affirming awards for total disability and death benefits to the estate of a district manager for Howard Stores Corp. The decedent was found injured and disoriented in Manhattan during work hours and later died. The core issues were whether an industrial accident occurred in the course of employment and its causal relationship to the death. Despite a lack of direct evidence and conflicting medical opinions, the Board found for the claimant, applying a statutory presumption that the unwitnessed accident arose out of employment. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding and the presumption was not rebutted. A dissenting opinion argued that the decedent’s actions constituted a personal pursuit, negating the presumption and the link to employment.

workers' compensation lawindustrial accidentcausal relationshipstatutory presumptioncourse of employmentunwitnessed accidentdeath benefitstotal disabilityappellate reviewdissenting opinion
References
4
Case No. 533788
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Howard Alphonso Fuller

Claimant Howard Alphonso Fuller sustained work-related injuries in 2006, and his workers' compensation claim was established. He also initiated a third-party action, which the Uninsured Employers' Fund (UEF) consented to settle in 2013, contingent on receiving a judicial closing statement and payment of its $94,927 lien. Despite repeated requests from UEF between 2015 and 2018 for these documents, they were not provided. In 2020, UEF sought suspension of claimant's benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) suspended benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found the doctrine of laches inapplicable. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's refusal to apply laches and the suspension of benefits pending proof of lien satisfaction.

Workers' CompensationLienThird-Party ActionLachesUninsured Employers FundSuspension of BenefitsJudicial Closing StatementPrejudiceAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Sprint/United Management Co.

Plaintiff Thomas Howard sued defendants Sprint/United Management Company, Sprint Corporation, Mueller, and Guerriero for retaliation under Title VII, New York Human Rights Law § 296, and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, along with a breach of contract claim. Howard alleged retaliation after reporting several instances of sexual harassment involving co-workers Smolen and Busciglio. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for their actions, including the elimination of Howard's position and not promoting him. The Court dismissed Howard's N.Y.H.R.L. claims against the corporate defendants and Guerriero, and also dismissed his breach of contract claim, finding no express contractual limitation on employment-at-will. However, the Court denied summary judgment on the Title VII and LAD claims, concluding that Howard presented sufficient evidence for a jury to infer improper conduct and retaliation, and that issues of fact regarding the causal connection and defendants' reasons precluded summary judgment.

RetaliationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawNew Jersey Law Against DiscriminationSexual HarassmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWrongful TerminationHostile Work EnvironmentBreach of Contract
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. City of New York

Plaintiff Christopher Howard sued the New York City Police Department for wrongful termination, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and NYCHRL due to anxiety and panic attacks. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending Howard could not perform essential police duties and they reasonably believed he was predisposed to disabling anxiety. The court granted summary judgment, finding Howard failed to present admissible medical evidence to dispute the NYPD psychologist's conclusion that he was vulnerable to recurring anxiety. Additionally, the court dismissed Howard's NYCHRL claims as defendants met their burden, and his retaliation claims were abandoned due to lack of evidence. Claims against the NYPD were also dismissed, as it is a non-suable agency of the City.

Wrongful terminationDisability discriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)Summary judgmentPolice officerFitness for dutyAnxiety disorderPanic attacksMedical diagnosis
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Headly

Plaintiff Carter Howard, an inmate, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against prison officials Headly, Crum, and Fiegl-Bock, alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Howard claimed he was forced to perform strenuous work beyond his physical capabilities despite medical restrictions and repeated complaints, leading to further injuries. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds. The Court denied the motion, finding that Howard sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition and that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Civil RightsInmate RightsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentDeliberate IndifferencePrison ConditionsMedical RestrictionsQualified ImmunityMotion to DismissPleading Standards
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Howard

The defendant, James T. Howard, sought the expungement of his arrest records related to a 1999 arrest for impersonating a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 912. Although the initial indictment was dismissed by the government in 2000 due to concerns about the credibility of key witnesses who had smoked marijuana, Howard argued that this dismissal reflected his innocence and that the arrest record was impeding his career prospects in law enforcement. The court, however, denied the motion, stating that expungement is reserved for "extreme circumstances" not met by Howard's claims of employment difficulty, which were deemed conclusory. Furthermore, the court found that sufficient probable cause existed for the initial arrest, as the witnesses' statements, though later questioned for credibility, were lucid at the time and supported by other evidence, thus demonstrating no constitutional infirmity in the arrest itself.

ExpungementArrest RecordProbable CauseImpersonationFederal OfficerWitness CredibilityDismissed IndictmentJudicial DiscretionEmployment BarriersBounty Hunter
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 117 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