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
Jul 24, 2008

Riches v. New York City Council

This case concerns an appeal affirming the dismissal of a summary judicial inquiry requested by eight citizens against the New York City Council and Speaker Quinn. The petitioners sought an inquiry into the Council's practice of allocating funds to "fictitious organizations" or "holding codes" during its budgeting process, alleging violations of the New York City Charter. The motion court, and subsequently the appellate court, determined that the Supreme Court justice appropriately exercised discretion in denying the inquiry. The decision was based on reasons including extensive public disclosure of the practice, ongoing investigations by governmental agencies, and the determination that the alleged transgression was not the type of venal act the Charter provision was designed to address. The court affirmed that granting such an inquiry is a matter of sound judicial discretion.

Summary judicial inquiryNew York City Charter Section 1109City Council budgetingFictitious organizationsGovernmental misconductAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewJudicial discretionPublic interestOngoing investigations
References
17
Case No. 02 Civ. 7659(SAS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. NYC Transit Auth.

This case involves a dispute between several labor unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary regarding the legality of NYCTA's sick leave policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unions challenged the policy's medical inquiry requirements, arguing they violated ADA provisions against inquiries that may reveal a disability. The NYCTA justified its policy by citing the need to curb sick leave abuse and ensure workplace and public safety. The court applied the framework established in Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services. It found that curbing sick leave abuse was a legitimate business necessity but only justified the policy for employees on a narrowly-defined "sick leave control list." The court also determined that ensuring safety was a vital business necessity, justifying the policy for safety-sensitive employees, specifically bus operators, but required further factual development for other employee groups. Ultimately, the court issued a declaratory judgment, clarifying the permissible scope of the policy's medical inquiries and rejecting the Authority's defenses of unclean hands and laches.

ADA ComplianceSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiryEmployment DiscriminationBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyPublic SafetyLabor Union LitigationCollective BargainingBus Operator
References
16
Case No. 02 Civ. 7659
Regular Panel Decision

Transport Workers Union v. New York City Transit Authority

This case addresses a conflict between the New York City Transit Authority's sick leave policy and its employees' privacy rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff unions sought a declaratory judgment that the Authority's policy, requiring medical inquiries for sick leave, violated the ADA. The court found that the policy's inquiries fall within the ADA's prohibition. However, the court ruled that the policy is justified by business necessity for employees on a sick leave control list to curb abuse and for safety-sensitive employees like bus operators. A further trial is required to determine if safety concerns justify the policy for other employee groups. The court ultimately allowed the policy's enforcement to continue for now, pending further factual development.

Americans with Disabilities ActSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiriesBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyAbsenteeism AbuseLabor UnionsPublic TransportationDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer Policy
References
16
Case No. ADJ2170527 (VNO 0494225)
Regular
Jul 27, 2009

LUIS ORTIZ vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board granted removal to address the applicant's petition to set aside a dismissal order. The WCJ improperly took the case off-calendar without explanation and wrongly concluded jurisdiction was lost, failing to properly address the applicant's dismissal setting aside petition. Crucially, the dismissal order may be invalid due to improper service on the applicant's attorney. The case is returned to the trial level for a full factual inquiry into the dismissal and potential service defects.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Off-CalendarPetition to Set Aside Order of DismissalAdministrative Rule 10582Lack of ProsecutionImproper ServiceContinuing JurisdictionLabor Code § 5803Good CauseHearing on the Merits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 1992

In re the Claim of Cross

This case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. This disqualification stemmed from a finding of misconduct during employment, based on an arbitrator's factual findings which included the claimant deliberately kicking a co-worker and making inappropriate telephone inquiries. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that this behavior constituted misconduct, thereby affirming the decision to disqualify the claimant from benefits.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductDisqualificationAppeal BoardAdministrative LawArbitrator FindingsEmployee MisconductWorkplace ConductBenefit EligibilityAffirmed Decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ9834044
Regular
Feb 27, 2019

ELISEO ZEPEDA vs. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., administrator for ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal to rescind an order that summarily stayed a lien under Labor Code section 4615 without proper evidentiary hearing. The Board found that determining if Blue Oak Medical was "controlled" by a criminally charged individual required factual inquiry and evidence, which was lacking. This procedural defect violated the defendant's due process rights, necessitating the return of the case to the trial level for a proper adjudication of the section 4615 stay issue.

Labor Code § 4615Automatic stayLien claimantDue processRemoval petitionWCJAdministrative law judgePetition for dismissalAffirmative defensesEvidentiary hearing
References
13
Case No. ADJ10135147
Regular
Jan 11, 2016

DEANNA BARNETTE vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a stipulated award, and returned the case to the trial level for further inquiry. The defendant sought to set aside the award, arguing mutual mistake of fact regarding credit for employer disability plan payments, which they claimed would lead to overpayment. The Board agreed that the stipulations' validity, specifically whether there was good cause to set them aside due to mistake, needs to be determined by the trial judge. This decision allows for an examination of the applicant's understanding and the factual basis of the original stipulations.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulated AwardMutual Mistake of FactPermanent Disability IndemnityEmployer's Disability PlanUnjust EnrichmentOverpaymentGood CauseSetting Aside StipulationsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lupascu v. Utog 2-Way Radio

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant was classified as permanently totally disabled by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The employer, through independent counsel, filed an appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Board after the carrier opted not to appeal. The Board dismissed the employer's appeal, ruling it lacked standing without the carrier's participation and found no conflict of interest between them. On appeal, the Court found no basis to preclude an employer from filing an independent application for review under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23, identifying the employer as a 'party in interest.' The Court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for a factual inquiry on the issue of standing.

Workers' Compensation LawStandingAppellate ReviewEmployer's RightsCarrier ParticipationPermanent Total DisabilityRemandJudicial PrecedentConflict of InterestParty in Interest
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Universal Metal Products Co. & United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America

This case involves motions to modify and confirm, and to vacate, an arbitration award concerning a dispute between a union and an employer. The core issue stems from a 1942 collective labor agreement regarding a scheduled wage increase, which the employer claimed to have paid in advance. The arbitrator based the award solely on contract interpretation, neglecting crucial questions of fact related to contract performance and employee waiver. The court ruled that the arbitration was imperfectly executed due to this omission of factual inquiry. Therefore, the motion to confirm the award was denied, the motion to vacate was granted, and the controversy was directed to the New York State Board of Mediation for further arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeContract InterpretationLabor LawArbitration Award VacatedArbitration Award Confirmation DeniedFactual DisputeArbitrator PowersJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pesserillo v. National Grid

Plaintiff Richard Pesserillo sued National Grid for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). He alleged constructive discharge after a sleep apnea diagnosis led to a vehicular accident and subsequent pressure to retire. National Grid moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Pesserillo had signed an Agreement and General Release waiving all such claims. The Court denied National Grid's motion, ruling that it was premature to determine the validity of the waiver without further factual inquiry into the circumstances of its execution, especially considering Pesserillo's allegations of duress and coercion. This decision allows the plaintiff to proceed with his claims.

Disability DiscriminationConstructive DischargeAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York State Human Rights LawMotion to DismissWaiver AgreementRelease of ClaimsTotality of CircumstancesDuressCoercion
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,598 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