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

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thoms v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Thoms)

Kashima Thoms, a Chapter 7 debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding seeking the discharge of her substantial student loan obligations totaling $90,948.58, citing "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) became the primary defendant, administering all of Thoms's student loans. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court applied the Second Circuit's stringent three-part Brunner test, which requires demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal living standard, persistence of this hardship, and good faith repayment efforts. The Court found that Thoms, earning $48,000 annually, had sufficient disposable income, and her financial prospects were likely to improve, particularly with potential changes in childcare expenses and family living arrangements. Crucially, Thoms had made only minimal payments years prior and failed to utilize available loan restructuring options, thereby failing to prove good faith. Consequently, the Court ruled that Thoms did not establish undue hardship, denying the discharge of her student loan debts.

Bankruptcy LawStudent Loan DischargeUndue Hardship DoctrineBrunner TestChapter 7 BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingFinancial DistressRepayment EffortsFederal Student LoansDebtor-Creditor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2005

Doe v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Doe)

The Debtor, Jane Doe, aged 46, sought to discharge student loans managed by Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC) due to "undue hardship" under § 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court found that the Debtor met the three-part Brunner test, demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal standard of living, additional circumstances likely to persist (chronic illnesses, support for her dependent mother, and grim employment prospects), and good faith efforts to repay her loans when able. The decision grants the discharge of her student loans, emphasizing the specific and challenging circumstances of her case.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcyBrunner TestDependent SupportFinancial DistressChapter 7Income Contingent RepaymentMedical ExpensesEmployment Prospects
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Steen v. Governor's Office of Employee Relations

Petitioners, employed as Recreation Workers and Therapists at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center, were assigned new duties as "Treatment Plan Coordinators" under the "Buffalo Model" program. These new responsibilities included transcribing patient information, conducting patient interviews, entering data into worksheets, and performing 90-day progress reviews. Believing these tasks constituted out-of-title work typically performed by higher-grade Treatment Team Leaders, petitioners filed administrative grievances, which were consistently denied by the Governor's Office of Employee Relations. Subsequently, petitioners commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, but the Supreme Court dismissed their application, upholding the administrative determination. On appeal, the higher court found no rational basis for the administrative conclusion that the duties were a logical extension of petitioners' original roles, determining that the work was indeed out-of-title. Consequently, the judgment of the Supreme Court was reversed, the administrative determination annulled, and the petition granted.

Out-of-title workGrievancePosition classificationAdministrative determinationJudicial reviewAlbany CountyState Office of Mental HealthPilgrim Psychiatric CenterTreatment Plan CoordinatorsRecreation Worker
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shultz v. Radio Officers' Union of the United Telegraph Workers

The Secretary of Labor filed an action against the Radio Officers’ Union (ROU) under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The Secretary sought to nullify the 1969 election for President and National Committeeman—Oakland due to two alleged incidents of misconduct. The court found that ROU President Joseph Glynn improperly interfered with Lester Parnell’s candidacy for National Committeeman—Oakland by coercing him to withdraw, violating 29 U.S.C. § 481(e). Additionally, the court found that ROU discriminated against presidential candidate R. C. Smith by failing to provide him with the union's ship list for campaign mailings, a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 481(c). Both violations were deemed to have potentially affected the election outcome. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the Secretary of Labor.

Labor Union ElectionElection MisconductLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Candidate EligibilityUnion DiscriminationFreedom of Speech (within union elections)Pension JeopardyCampaign LiteratureMembership List AccessInternal Union Remedies
References
21
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00302 [135 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2016

Domaszowec v. Residential Management Group LLC

Plaintiff Tracy Domaszowec's decedent died from a fall while cleaning a window on the 13th floor of an apartment building. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Residential Management Group LLC and 40 Fifth Avenue Corporation (40 Fifth defendants), the building owner and manager. The court found the decedent was engaged in "commercial window washing," thereby making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 202 against Veronica Bulgari and Stephen Haimo due to lack of exclusive control, and common-law negligence claims against T&L Contracting of N.Y., Inc. and Greenpoint Woodworking Inc. due to the lack of an exception to the contractual obligation rule. Issues of fact precluded summary judgment on negligence claims against Panorama Windows, Ltd., and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable to certain defendants.

Window cleaner fatalityScaffold LawSummary judgment appealAppellate Division First DepartmentCommercial vs. routine window washingLabor Law applicabilityContractual tort liabilityRes ipsa loquitur in negligencePunitive damages dismissalExpert witness evidence
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1993

Olsen v. We'll Manage, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal by We'll Manage, Inc. from an order denying its cross motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiff Gary Olsen under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. We'll Manage, Inc. contended that Olsen was its special employee, providing evidence of direct supervision, work assignments, the right to fire him, and payment signed by its personnel, despite his wages being drawn from a general employer's account. The court found this established a special employment relationship. As Olsen received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, he is statutorily barred from maintaining an action against the special employer. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted We'll Manage, Inc.'s cross motion, and dismissed the complaint against the appellant.

Special EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarSummary JudgmentLabor LawDirect SupervisionControlAffidavitDeposition TestimonyGeneral EmployerAppellate Reversal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Mauro v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Plaintiff Maria Mauro brought an action against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and several other defendants, including her investment advisor Peter J. Dawson and the Kaplan defendants (attorneys for Countrywide), alleging federal claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and various state law claims. Mauro claimed that the proceeds from two mortgage loans, secured by her investment rental properties, were misappropriated by Dawson. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that TILA was inapplicable because the loans were for business purposes and that the Kaplan defendants were not 'creditors' under the statute. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the TILA claim, concluding that the loans were indeed for business purposes, thus exempting them from TILA's coverage. The court also found that the Kaplan defendants did not qualify as 'creditors' under TILA. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Truth in Lending ActTILA ExemptionBusiness PurposeInvestment PropertySummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMortgage FraudCreditor Definition
References
57
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02156 [215 AD3d 1201]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Holder v. Office for People with Dev. Disabilities

Claimant's husband, a house manager for the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities, contracted COVID-19 and passed away in March 2020. Claimant filed for workers' compensation death benefits, alleging his death was causally related to his employment. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the death benefits claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding there was insufficient evidence to prove COVID-19 was prevalent in the decedent's work environment prior to his symptoms. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant failed to meet her burden of establishing that the decedent contracted COVID-19 in the course of his employment.

COVID-19 DeathWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationEmployment ExposureHouse ManagerGroup HomeBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 4,940 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