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
Dec 27, 2017

Testa v. CareFusion

Stephen Testa, proceeding pro se, sued CareFusion alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and New York Labor Law. Testa, hired at 52 and terminated at 53, claimed his poor job performance was a pretext for age-based termination, citing a younger replacement and supervisor remarks about his "era" and "younger sales manager" skills. CareFusion moved for summary judgment, arguing Testa's termination was solely due to documented poor performance, including failure to meet sales objectives and Performance Improvement Plan requirements. The court found Testa's performance issues undisputed and ruled that the supervisor's alleged stray remarks, made months before termination, were insufficient to establish discriminatory intent. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to CareFusion on the ADEA claim and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice, concluding Testa was fired for poor performance, not age.

Age DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWrongful TerminationPerformance ManagementPro Se LitigationPretext EvidenceBurden-Shifting FrameworkSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1999

Claim of Vaupell v. City of Buffalo Board of Education

Claimant, a special education teacher, suffered a head laceration and concussion in 1993, leading to workers' compensation benefits for a psychiatric condition. She returned to work in 1994 with no restrictions. In 1995, she was denied tenure and terminated due to poor job performance and subsequently filed for further benefits, alleging her ineffectiveness and termination were causally related to her prior psychiatric condition. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the claim, finding her stress-related symptoms stemmed from poor performance evaluations. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the court also affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that her loss of employment was solely related to the employer's denial of tenure and poor work performance, rather than the original compensable injury, consistent with Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7).

Workers' CompensationPsychiatric ConditionCausal RelationEmployment TerminationPoor PerformanceDenial of TenureStress-related SymptomsMedical EvaluationAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. 2013-1461 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Performance Plus Med., P.C. v. Nationwide Ins.

This case involves an appeal by Performance Plus Medical, P.C., acting as an assignee, against Nationwide Ins. The plaintiff sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Term affirmed this order, ruling that the defendant's timely verification request tolled the insurer's time to pay or deny the claim, thus rendering the plaintiff's action premature due to a failure to respond to the request. Additionally, the court found that the defendant had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case for denying claims related to the first cause of action based on the workers' compensation fee schedule, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentVerification requestInsurer's time to payPremature actionWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court orderFirst-party benefitsAssigned claims
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gradel v. Lilholt

Petitioner, a sanitation worker for the Sullivan County Public Works Department, challenged his employment termination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The termination followed a disciplinary hearing under Civil Service Law § 75, where he was found guilty of excessive absenteeism, poor job performance, and insubordination. Despite the Hearing Officer's recommendation for a suspension and probation, respondents terminated his employment. The petitioner contended that the findings were unsupported by substantial evidence and the penalty was excessive. The court disagreed, affirming the determination and dismissing the petition, citing substantial evidence for misconduct and insubordination, and finding the penalty proportionate given a pattern of poor work performance and disruptive behavior.

Employment TerminationDisciplinary HearingCivil Service LawAbsenteeismInsubordinationPoor Job PerformanceCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewPenalty ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Houghton

This case concerns a petition to annul a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights, which had found that the petitioner, an employer, discriminated against an employee (complainant-respondent) based on age. The Supreme Court, New York County, transferred the petition, which was subsequently granted. The court annulled the Division's determination, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of age discrimination. The record indicated that the complainant was terminated due to a failure to meet sales quotas and performance expectations, rather than age-related reasons. Evidence presented highlighted that a younger predecessor was also terminated for poor performance, the complainant's performance was significantly worse than her peers, she was hired at age 53, and the workplace had a diverse age demographic with older, high-performing employees.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSales PerformanceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawHuman Rights LawExecutive LawEvidentiary StandardsBurden of ProofAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Mosaic & Terrazzo Welfare, Pension, Annuity & Vacation Funds v. High Performance Floors, Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various employee benefit funds, brought this action under ERISA and LMRA to collect employer contributions from defendants HPF, Inc. and High Performance Floors, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that HPF was an alter ego of, or single employer with, High Performance, aiming to evade obligations under a collective bargaining agreement. Following a non-jury trial, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold concluded that High Performance and HPF were indeed alter egos and constituted a single employer. This determination was based on compelling evidence of shared management, employees, operations, equipment, and a common business purpose, coupled with an intent to circumvent union obligations. Consequently, the court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for the unpaid contributions.

Alter Ego DoctrineSingle Employer DoctrineERISA EnforcementLMRA LitigationUnpaid Employer ContributionsCollective Bargaining Agreement BreachEmployee Benefit Fund ProtectionCorporate DisregardLabor Relations LawJoint and Several Liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deebs v. Alstom Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiffs William Drake and Timothy Deebs sued their former employer, ALSTOM Transportation, Inc., alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and, for Deebs, retaliation under the ADEA and NYHRL. ALSTOM moved for summary judgment. Drake, a 57-year-old product-line supervisor, was terminated during a reduction in force due to performance issues and being on a performance improvement plan (PIP). Deebs, over forty, was terminated after failing a required electrical skills test multiple times. Deebs also claimed retaliation when his temporary assignment with ALSTOM, through a staffing agency, was ended after HR learned of his prior termination and EEOC charge. The court found that both plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or rebut ALSTOM's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination. Drake's claims of pretext were based on speculation and inadmissible hearsay. Deebs failed to prove he was qualified and his retaliation claim lacked sufficient causal connection or evidence against ALSTOM's non-retaliatory reason of prior poor performance. Therefore, ALSTOM's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentPerformance Improvement PlanReduction in ForcePrima Facie CaseBurden-shiftingPretextDisparate Treatment
References
27
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02769 [195 AD3d 140]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2021

Robinson v. Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc.

This class action sought unpaid gratuities under Labor Law § 196-d. The central question was whether an employer has a right to contractual indemnification from a third party for claims brought under this statute. The court determined that contractual indemnification in this context is against public policy, citing similar rulings on other labor laws like the FLSA. The Supreme Court had dismissed the third-party complaint, and this appellate decision affirmed that dismissal, stating that allowing such indemnification would undermine employers' willingness to comply with their statutory obligations.

unpaid gratuitiesLabor Lawcontractual indemnificationpublic policyemployer liabilitywage violationsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)third-party claimsclass actionappellate review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,347 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