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

Claim of Liberius v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

The claimant suffered work-related injuries and was awarded compensation for a permanent partial disability through conciliation. The self-insured employer delayed payment, leading the claimant to seek a 20% penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). However, a WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board imposed only a $500 fine under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2-b) (h), citing a regulation that exempted conciliation cases from the 20% penalty. On appeal, the Court reversed, ruling that the statutory 20% penalty applies to conciliation awards and that the regulation (12 NYCRR 312.5 [j]) which barred it was invalid for conflicting with the enabling statute.

Workers' CompensationPenaltyConciliationStatutory InterpretationLate PaymentPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewRegulation Invalidity
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norlite Corp. v. Local 106-106B of International Union of Operating Engineers

Norlite Corporation brought suit against Local 106-106B of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Wayne Horvitz to enjoin arbitration of a labor dispute concerning the discharge of two employees and to recover monetary damages for a wildcat strike. The Union counterclaimed, asserting that the discharges were subject to arbitration and seeking an order to compel it. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding arbitrability, while the complaint against Horvitz was dismissed by consent. The central issue was whether employee discharges fell under the collective bargaining agreement's arbitration clause. The court, citing national policy favoring arbitration and the agreement's broad language, concluded that the discharges were arbitrable, denying Norlite's motion and granting the Union's. Additionally, Norlite's second cause of action for damages related to the wildcat strike was dismissed as premature, pending the outcome of arbitration regarding employee reinstatement and back pay.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionNo-strike ClauseUnionEmployerFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Doe v. City of New York

Plaintiff, an HIV-positive former Pan Am employee, filed a discrimination complaint against Delta Airlines with the New York City Commission on Human Rights. A conciliation agreement included a confidentiality clause regarding his identity and HIV status. The defendants allegedly issued a press release that, without explicitly naming the plaintiff, contained enough information to identify him and his HIV status, leading to newspaper disclosures. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of constitutional right of privacy, stating it does not extend to matters of public record. The remaining state law claims for breach of contract and violation of New York Public Health Law § 2782(1) were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Privacy RightsHIV ConfidentialityBreach of ContractSection 1983Constitutional LawHuman Rights CommissionMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsConciliation Agreement
References
2
Case No. CV-24-0993
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Daphyne Rodin

Claimant sustained a work-related left shoulder injury in 2014, leading to differing medical opinions on schedule loss of use (SLU) between her treating physician and the carrier's orthopedic consultant. A conciliation decision directed depositions, and claimant's counsel subpoenaed the carrier's consultant, who failed to appear. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board found no SLU, with the Board refusing to preclude the consultant's report due to claimant's counsel's failure to timely request an extension for the deposition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that claimant waived the right to cross-examine the consultant by not making reasonable efforts to reschedule or seek an extension for the deposition. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision not to preclude the medical report.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Medical Report PreclusionDeposition TestimonyCross-Examination RightsWaiver of RightAppellate DivisionBoard Decision AffirmationOrthopedic InjuryMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 1989

Realmuto v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.

This age discrimination action stems from the termination of plaintiff Realmuto's employment with defendant Yellow Freight System, Inc. at age 57. Realmuto alleged age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Human Rights Law, along with breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendant's motion to strike demands for compensatory and punitive damages under the ADEA, as these are not recoverable. Additionally, the court dismissed the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding the allegations did not meet New York's strict standards. Finally, the court refused to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the New York Human Rights claim, citing concerns about jury prejudice, confusion regarding damages, and the importance of incentivizing administrative conciliation.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationADEANew York Human Rights LawIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesPendent JurisdictionAdministrative ExhaustionWorkers' Compensation Exclusivity
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Doar

This case concerns a public assistance recipient's challenge against the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) for its practices related to work activity requirements. The petitioner, a full-time employed individual, repeatedly faced penalties due to mandatory HRA appointments conflicting with his known work schedule. The court found HRA's practices unlawful, ruling that the agency failed to accommodate known work schedules, improperly denied representation at conciliation appointments, and issued punitive notices without adequate case record review. The court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, compelling HRA to adjust scheduling, permit representatives, and conduct thorough reviews before imposing sanctions. However, it denied further injunctive relief that would exempt full-time employed recipients from all work activity appointments.

Public AssistanceWork RequirementsNon-compliance PenaltyDue ProcessAdministrative LawInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory JudgmentSocial Services LawHRAOTDA
References
33
Case No. 89-1200T
Regular Panel Decision

Lippa v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiff Carmen Lippa initiated this action under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and New York Human Rights Law, alleging sex, marital, and retaliatory discrimination during her employment with General Motors Corporation, A.C. Rochester Products, and Steven Medwid. The court initially dismissed the state Human Rights Law claim, citing an unwarranted exercise of pendent jurisdiction and an election of remedies. Plaintiff sought reconsideration of this decision, moving to alter or amend the judgment. The court granted the request for reconsideration but ultimately denied the motion to alter or amend, affirming its prior dismissal of the plaintiff's Human Rights Law claim. The decision to decline pendent jurisdiction was based on concerns about potential jury confusion due to differing remedies and evidentiary requirements between the federal and state claims, and to uphold the incentive for conciliation in administrative processes.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationMarital Status DiscriminationRetaliatory DiscriminationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActNew York Human Rights LawPendent JurisdictionElection of RemediesAdministrative Convenience
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1983

Byrd v. Long Island Lighting Co.

The Reverend Herbert Byrd, a Black man, initiated this action against Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and Local 1049, alleging discriminatory employment practices regarding seniority and testing under federal Civil Rights Acts and New York Human Rights Law, along with a claim of unfair representation against the union. Both defendants sought summary judgment on all claims. The court largely granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing most of Byrd's Title VII, Section 1981, and state law seniority claims as time-barred or lacking sufficient evidence. While the state testing claim against LILCO was also dismissed, the court denied LILCO's motion for summary judgment on a claim to enforce a 1974 conciliation agreement, allowing that specific issue to proceed against LILCO. All federal and state claims against Local 1049 were ultimately dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1866Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964Labor Management Relations ActNew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsSeniority SystemEmployment Testing
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goulding v. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Pro se plaintiff Mary Goulding sued the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging she was denied job advancement and later terminated due to her age. She had initially filed a complaint with the EEOC in 1984, which was deferred to the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), where her claim was denied. After her employment was terminated in 1989, Goulding initiated this federal lawsuit. IEEE moved to dismiss claims arising after November 1984, arguing Goulding had not properly filed new EEOC or state claims for these subsequent events or observed the statutory 60-day conciliation period. The court acknowledged Goulding's failure to meet these procedural requirements but, citing precedent, opted to suspend the prematurely filed claims rather than dismiss them, allowing for proper compliance with the statutory waiting periods.

Age discriminationADEASubject matter jurisdictionEEOCState Division of Human RightsProcedural requirementsConciliation periodMotion to dismissEmployment lawFederal court
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 13 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