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

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local Union 813, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Waste Management of New York, LLC

This action concerns a dispute between Waste Management of New York and Local 813 of the IBT regarding the arbitrability of employee terminations. Eight employees were terminated for misconduct occurring after the expiration of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) but before a successor agreement was finalized. The Union sought to compel arbitration, arguing that the arbitration and termination-for-cause provisions of the expired contract survived. The employer contended these provisions did not survive, thus negating any obligation to arbitrate. The court examined principles of contract interpretation and labor law, concluding that the arbitration clause did not apply to the dispute, as there was no mutual agreement to extend these terms post-expiration. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Waste Management and denied the Union's motion.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementcontract expirationemployee terminationsummary judgmentlabor disputejust cause provisionunilateral implementationimpassestrike
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stankowski v. Kim

Plaintiff's decedent, Janusz Stankowski, was killed after being struck by a truck backing into Post & Taback's loading dock at the New York City Terminal Market. Plaintiff alleged negligence against Post & Taback for maintaining a dangerous condition (debris) and failing to control traffic, claiming the debris caused Stankowski to slip and be struck again. The IAS court denied Post & Taback's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding no admissible evidence of Stankowski slipping on debris and no duty for Post & Taback to maintain the area where the accident occurred or control traffic. The dissent argued that issues of fact remained regarding the debris contributing to the accident and Post & Taback's duty to clear the area close to its dock.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulesHearsay EvidenceTraffic ControlLoading Dock AccidentDuty of Care
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. ADJ10383637
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

BRENDA RICH vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The defendant appeals an award of temporary disability and medical reimbursement. The applicant's psychiatric injury claim was found barred by the post-termination provisions of Labor Code section 3208.3(e). However, the initial finding incorrectly granted benefits based on the defendant's failure to act after receiving a medical evaluator's report, as per Labor Code section 4063. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original decision, and ruled that no compensation is owed due to the claim being time-barred and a post-termination claim.

post-termination claimLabor Code section 3208.3(e)psychiatric injurytemporary disability indemnityself-procured medical carestatute of limitationsformal medical evaluationqualified medical evaluatorpanel selectiondeclaration of readiness to proceed
References
0
Case No. ADJ7165116
Regular
Jul 05, 2018

FRANK ANTONE ALFAMA III vs. SMART & FINAL, LLC

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for psychiatric injury. The applicant's claim was denied by the WCJ and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board because it was filed after his termination. The Board affirmed the denial, finding the applicant failed to meet any exceptions to Labor Code section 3208.3(e)'s post-termination psychiatric claim provisions. Specifically, a customer altercation leading to termination was not deemed a "sudden and extraordinary event," and no prior notice of psychiatric injury, medical records, or harassment were present.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCumulative InjuryNervous System InjuryPsyche InjuryPost-Termination Psychiatric ClaimLabor Code Section 3208.3(e)Sudden and Extraordinary EventsNotice of Termination
References
1
Case No. ADJ11030955
Regular
Jan 06, 2020

JOSE RIVAS ESCALANTE vs. WEST ANAHEIM MEDICAL CENTER, SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding of industrial injury. The Board agreed that the claim was not barred by post-termination provisions because the applicant's date of injury, defined by disability and knowledge of its industrial cause, occurred after notice of termination. Evidence showed the applicant did not suffer a compensable disability or ratable permanent disability until after he was terminated. Furthermore, the Board found that medical evaluators adequately considered non-industrial conditions in their findings of industrial causation.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination provisionsexception 3600(a)(10)(D)date of injurynotice of terminationcertified nurse's assistantindustrial injurycervical spinelumbar spineleft wrist
References
7
Case No. ADJ10640336
Regular
Jul 30, 2018

Refugio Gonzalez vs. Swift Transportation, Gallagher Bassett

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior finding, extending the applicant's cumulative psychiatric injury date to her termination on October 7, 2016. The Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury, clarifying that Labor Code section 3208.3(e) applies, not general post-termination provisions, and that the applicant's prior medical treatment satisfied an exception. Furthermore, the Board found that the employer failed to prove the termination was a good faith personnel action, as the investigation into alleged alcohol possession was not objectively reasonable given a negative test and a disgruntled accuser.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpsychiatric injurycumulative injurypost-termination defensegood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3(e)notice of terminationobjective reasonablenesscausationdate of injury
References
7
Case No. ADJ8312614, ADJ9055869
Regular
Sep 02, 2017

IMELDA TAPIA DE RODRIGUEZ vs. BIRRIERIA JALISCO, FARMERS INSURANCE, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case consolidates two workers' compensation claims filed by applicant Imelda Tapia De Rodriguez against Birrieria Jalisco. In one claim (ADJ9055869), the WCJ found a specific injury occurred but was barred by the post-termination defense; the Appeals Board affirmed this finding. In the other claim (ADJ8312614), the WCJ found no injury arose out of employment, which the Appeals Board also affirmed, relying on medical evidence and applicant's failure to properly cite record support in her petition. Applicant appealed, arguing the post-termination defense was inapplicable due to employer notice issues and that her credibility was wrongly assessed without proper interpreter use. A dissenting opinion argues that exceptions to the post-termination defense, specifically notice to the employer prior to termination and the date of injury occurring after termination, should have been applied, warranting reversal and further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersPost-Termination DefenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Statute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 3550Notice of RightsQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 4,062 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