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. 00-CV-1598
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Jenkins v. NORTHWOOD REHAB. & EXTENDED CARE FACIL.

Plaintiff Pamela Joan Jenkins sued her prospective employer for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to accommodate her back problems which limited her lifting capacity as a physical therapist. The employment offer was rescinded after a health questionnaire revealed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, a job requirement. Highgate considered and rejected various accommodations, deeming them impractical, unsafe, or requiring the elimination of essential job functions. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting test and found that Jenkins could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA, unable to perform the essential functions of the job even with accommodation. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice.

ADA discriminationDisability employmentReasonable accommodationEssential job functionsSummary judgmentPhysical therapistBack injuryMcDonnell Douglas testQualified individualEEOC claim
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2017

Jiles v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.

The case involves Quentin W. Jiles, a former delivery specialist for Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (WMT), who sued WMT for disability discrimination under the ADA, FMLA violations, and retaliation under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Jiles was terminated after returning from FMLA leave with medical restrictions, including an inability to work overtime or in extreme heat, which WMT deemed essential job functions. The court granted WMT's motion for summary judgment, finding that Jiles could not perform the essential functions of his job, and thus failed to establish a prima facie case for his ADA and FMLA claims. The court also found insufficient evidence for his Texas Workers' Compensation retaliation claim.

Workers' CompensationFMLAADADisability DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEssential FunctionsReasonable AccommodationOvertimeMedical Restrictions
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rios v. Indiana Bayer Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee with a prosthetic leg, sued his employer (Defendant, formerly Mobay Corporation) under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alleging disability discrimination after being denied a production technician position. The denial was based on existing medical restrictions from his doctor, which prohibited him from performing essential functions of the physically demanding job like climbing ladders, heavy lifting, and working twelve-hour shifts. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Plaintiff was not a qualified individual for the position as he could not perform its essential functions, nor could reasonable accommodations be made without eliminating core job duties. All claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationEssential FunctionsPhysical LimitationsProsthesisProduction Technician
References
10
Case No. 2024-10-1841
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2024

Francoeur, Bibiane v. Amerimed Medical Solutions, LLC

Bibiane Francoeur sustained work-related injuries, leading her treating physician to impose a no-driving restriction. Her employer, Amerimed Medical Solutions, LLC, offered a light duty position without transportation, which Francoeur declined, resulting in the termination of her temporary disability benefits. The trial court initially ordered the reinstatement of benefits, asserting the employer's offer was unreasonable for not providing transportation. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed this decision, clarifying that employers are not statutorily obligated to provide transportation for an employee's commute, especially when driving is not an essential job function. The Board emphasized that a reasonable return-to-work offer must accommodate restrictions impacting essential job functions, but not necessarily personal commuting challenges.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLight Duty RefusalDriving Restriction AccommodationEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewMedical Report FindingsTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityCommuting ExpensesWork Accident Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. Northwood Rehabilitation & Extended Care Facility

The plaintiff, a physical therapist with a long-standing back condition, sued her prospective employer, Highgate Manor, for disability discrimination after they rescinded her job offer. Highgate deemed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, requiring her to lift 50-100 pounds, an essential function of the physical therapist role. Despite considering accommodations such as assigning an aide or using mechanical lifts, Highgate concluded these were impractical, burdensome, or unsafe for patient care. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Munson, applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test and granted Highgate's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff was not a "qualified individual" as she could not perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and state law claims without prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActEmployment LawReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSummary JudgmentPhysical TherapyBack InjuryHiring PracticesMcDonnell Douglas Test
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2016

Reyes v. Phoenix Beverages, Inc.

Plaintiff Eddy Reyes sued his former employer, Phoenix Beverages, Inc., alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Reyes claimed he was denied reinstatement to his sales representative position after taking FMLA leave due to a non-work-related injury. The court addressed Defendant's arguments regarding judicial estoppel and the Plaintiff's failure to provide a full-duty medical certification. The Court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that Defendant failed to provide timely notice of fitness-for-duty requirements and that certain physical activities were not essential job functions. However, genuine factual disputes remain regarding whether Reyes was truly able to perform the essential functions of his job at the end of his FMLA leave, necessitating a trial.

FMLANYCHRLDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentJudicial EstoppelFitness-for-Duty CertificationEssential Job FunctionsReasonable AccommodationEmployee RightsEmployer Obligations
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2001

Mulhern v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The case involves Kevin Mulhern, a former employee of Eastman Kodak Company, who sued Kodak for discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and New York State Human Rights Law (NYHRL) due to his Nail-Patella Syndrome. Mulhern alleged that Kodak failed to reasonably accommodate his disability by not allowing him to work exclusively in the less physically demanding PRS area, despite his ability to perform those tasks. Kodak argued that rotation to more strenuous 3R tasks was an essential job function and that Mulhern's disability application statements contradicted his ability to work. The court denied Kodak's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding the essential functions of Mulhern's job, the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, and the interpretation of his disability application statements. The court also found triable issues of fact regarding the FMLA claim.

ADAFMLANYHRLDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSummary JudgmentWork RestrictionsMedical LeaveJudicial Estoppel
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00213
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Colamaio-Kohl v. Task Essential Corp.

Claimant Ernest Colamaio-Kohl sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an accidental injury during his employment as a skin care specialist. The Workers' Compensation Board determined an employer-employee relationship existed between Colamaio-Kohl and Task Essential Corp., and awarded benefits. Task Essential Corp. appealed, contesting the employer-employee relationship, arguing Colamaio-Kohl was a special employee of Bloomingdale's, and asserting improper notice of injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's findings. The court concluded that Task Essential Corp. exercised sufficient control over Colamaio-Kohl, he was not a special employee of Bloomingdale's, and late notice was excusable due to Task Essential Corp.'s actual knowledge of the accident.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentLate NoticeSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentSkin Care SpecialistRetail Employment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1999

Beaver v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

This case involves an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Patricia Beaver against Delta Air Lines, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Beaver, a former Reservations Sales Agent (RSA), claimed Delta failed to reasonably accommodate her partial blind spot, a permanent vision loss sustained after a head injury. Delta argued that Beaver could not perform the essential functions of the RSA position, specifically productivity and attendance standards, even with accommodation. The court granted Delta's motion for summary judgment, finding that Beaver was not a "qualified individual with a disability" under the ADA because she could not perform the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and Delta reasonably accommodated her by offering a senior clerk position.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment DiscriminationDisability AccommodationSummary JudgmentVision ImpairmentEssential FunctionsQualified Individual with a DisabilityPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas AnalysisFifth Circuit
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 2,397 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