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

Orlik Ex Rel. Orlik v. Dutchess County

Plaintiff Sheryl Orlik, on behalf of herself and her son Jared, sued Dutchess County, the Dutchess County Department of Social Services (DSS), and several individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Orlik alleged violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, Fourth Amendment rights, and malicious prosecution stemming from the allegedly wrongful removal of Jared from her custody. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The court granted summary judgment, finding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the procedural due process claim was denied due to a brief removal period, the substantive due process claim lacked egregious official conduct, the Fourth Amendment claim was supported by a reasonable belief in probable cause, and the malicious prosecution claim was not clearly established for civil Family Court proceedings. The motion was deemed moot for defendant Allers as he was sued only in his official capacity.

Qualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentChild RemovalProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessFourth AmendmentMalicious ProsecutionSocial Services LawChild Protective ServicesFoster Care
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen

The case involves a lawsuit against a doctor and hospitals concerning the detention and testing of an infant (A.E.) for suspected child abuse, and their role in the subsequent removal of all infant children from parental custody. Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including procedural and substantive due process, and Fourth Amendment rights, alongside New York state common law claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, medical malpractice, and gross negligence. The court granted summary judgment on procedural due process, § 1983 malicious prosecution, state law malicious prosecution, and unlawful imprisonment claims, and dismissed substantive due process claims related to A.E.'s hospital detention. However, the court denied summary judgment for Infant Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, all plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims related to the court-ordered removal, and Infant Plaintiffs’ medical malpractice and gross negligence claims, deeming these suitable for trial.

child abusecivil rightsSection 1983Fourth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentmedical malpracticegross negligencesummary judgmentqualified immunityparental rights
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mawhirt v. Ahmed

Kingsley Maw-hirt initiated this action on September 27, 1996, alleging violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights, as well as state law claims for false imprisonment and assault and battery, stemming from two involuntary psychiatric admissions to the University Hospital at Stony Brook in 1995. The District Court, presided over by Judge Spatt, converted the defendants' motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment. The Court granted all motions, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, finding that the plaintiff was afforded procedural due process under New York State Mental Hygiene Law and that the individual state and county defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for their objectively reasonable actions in confining and treating Mawhirt, based on multiple medical evaluations diagnosing paranoid schizophrenia and a substantial risk to himself and others. State law claims for false imprisonment against officers were dismissed due to lack of a notice of claim, while similar claims against doctors were precluded by qualified immunity. The claim for ineffective assistance of counsel was dismissed as court-appointed attorneys do not act under color of state law, and the state law assault and battery claim against Barbara Mawhirt was dismissed due to the court declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Involuntary commitmentPsychiatric treatmentDue process rightsFalse imprisonmentAssault and batteryQualified immunitySummary judgmentPro se plaintiffMental Hygiene LawSchizophrenia
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ryan v. Carroll

Susan Ryan, a probationary police officer, was terminated from the City of New Rochelle Police Department after failing a random drug test for THC. She disputed the results, undergoing independent tests that came back negative, and sought reconsideration. Commissioner Carroll upheld the termination after an internal investigation. Ryan then filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of her constitutional due process rights due to stigmatizing disclosure and wrongful termination, including a prior Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of worker's compensation benefits. The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Ryan's claims for lack of evidence of wrongful disclosure by defendants and the availability of an adequate state post-deprivation procedure for her procedural due process claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Article 78 claim.

Due Process ViolationLiberty Interest DeprivationSummary Judgment GrantedPolice Officer TerminationDrug Test ChallengeProbationary Employment RightsPublic Disclosure of InformationDefamation ClaimSection 1983 ActionArticle 78 Review
References
18
Case No. ADJ3714425 (FRE 0234250) ADJ896033 (FRE 0171714)
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

MICHAEL WRIGHT vs. STAR MEDIA, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a WCJ's order that enforced a reimbursement order against Travelers Indemnity Company. The Board found the reimbursement order void *ab initio* due to procedural due process infirmities. Specifically, the "self-destruct" clause in the order did not comport with due process protections outlined in precedent cases like *Mitchell v. Golden Eagle Ins.*, failing to guarantee a review of objections or automatically void the order upon valid objection. Therefore, Travelers' due process rights were violated, necessitating the rescission of the WCJ's findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder for ReimbursementCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Cumulative Trauma InjuryAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)ApportionmentDue ProcessSelf-Destruct ClauseVoid Ab Initio
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF HEMPSTEAD SCHOOL D.

The plaintiff, a tenured Director of Pupil Personnel Services for the Hempstead School District, had his position eliminated. A new position, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, was created with similar duties, but the plaintiff was not offered it nor given a pre-termination hearing. The plaintiff sued, alleging violations of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and New York Education Law section 2510(1). The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff was deprived of a property right without procedural due process. The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a pre-termination hearing on the 'similarity' of the positions. A trial is deemed necessary to determine the actual similarity of the jobs and whether the plaintiff suffered actual injury from the denial of due process.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentProperty InterestTenured AdministratorPosition EliminationPre-termination HearingJob SimilarityEducation LawMotion to DismissCompensatory Damages
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howell v. County of Albany

A correction officer's General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits were suspended by the Albany County Sheriff after he refused a light duty assignment following a workplace injury in September 2009. The officer initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging due process violations because the Hearing Officer supposedly refused to consider proof of post-traumatic stress disorder and relied on evidence outside the record. The Court determined that the petitioner was afforded due process, noting that a predetermination hearing was held where he presented witnesses and cross-examined the respondents'. The Court found no violation of procedural due process as the petitioner did not raise a genuine dispute regarding his PTSD diagnosis before the hearing. Ultimately, the Court confirmed the determination to suspend benefits and dismissed the petition.

Due ProcessGeneral Municipal Law 207-cLight Duty AssignmentDisability BenefitsCorrection OfficerAdministrative HearingProcedural Due ProcessWorkers' Compensation ClaimPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCredibility Assessment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anonymous v. Peters

This special proceeding, initiated under CPLR article 78 and converted into a declaratory judgment action, challenges the constitutionality of Social Services Law § 422. The petitioner argues that the statute violates procedural due process by allowing names to be added to the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment without a prior hearing and by lacking a time limit for post-deprivation hearings. Judge Leonard B. Austin dismissed the petition, ruling that the statutory scheme provides sufficient procedural safeguards, including a post-deprivation hearing with a higher standard of proof, which adequately protects due process rights while serving the State's compelling interest in child protection.

Constitutional LawDue ProcessChild Abuse RegisterSocial Services LawProcedural SafeguardsStigma Plus TestDeclaratory JudgmentArticle 78 ProceedingState InterestChild Protection
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 1997

Wright v. Safir

Plaintiff Annette Wright, a tenured New York City police officer, challenged her involuntary retirement for mental disability, arguing a violation of her due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following an incident and multiple psychological evaluations, including one by Dr. Andrew Propper, the Police Medical Board recommended her retirement. Her case was repeatedly remanded by the Board of Trustees for further review and the application of new due process procedures. Despite these protections, which plaintiff partially declined to utilize, the Medical Board's recommendation was ultimately adopted. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the afforded procedures constitutionally adequate, and dismissed Wright's complaint.

Due ProcessInvoluntary RetirementMental DisabilityPolice OfficerAdministrative LawSummary JudgmentConstitutional RightsFourteenth AmendmentPsychological EvaluationMedical Board
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 12,568 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