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

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Yarn Liquidation, Inc.

This memorandum addresses the priority of severance pay claims filed by fourteen former employees of SCT Yarns, Inc., a debtor in a Chapter 11 liquidation case. The court examines whether these claims qualify for third priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(3) for compensation earned within 90 days pre-petition, or first priority as administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1) for services rendered post-petition. Adopting the majority rule, the court determines that severance pay is an administrative expense only to the extent earned by service during the bankruptcy case and a third priority claim only if earned within the 90-day pre-petition period. The court calculates the amounts entitled to first priority as administrative expenses for eleven employees who continued service post-petition and acknowledges that the pre-petition severance pay for all fourteen employees may qualify for third priority, subject to a $4,000 limit.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 LiquidationSeverance PayPriority ClaimsAdministrative ExpensesEmployee CompensationBankruptcy Code § 507Pre-petition ClaimsPost-petition ClaimsCreditor Priority
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Godwin v. Morgan Lumber Co.

In this worker's compensation case, an employee suffered severe injuries to his left hand, including the amputation of his index and long fingers and a laceration to his ring finger, due to a saw accident. The employer challenged the trial court's award for permanent loss of use of the entire hand, contending it should be limited to the injured fingers. Medical experts, Dr. Robert James Barnett and Dr. Robert J. Smith, provided testimony indicating significant permanent partial disability to the employee's left hand as a whole, with estimates of 45% and 40% respectively, and noted the employee's difficulty gripping. The trial court determined that these injuries resulted in a 100% loss of use of the left hand for labor purposes, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The court referenced several precedents, including a New York case, supporting the principle that severe finger injuries can equate to the loss of use of the hand when they impair an individual's ability to perform work.

worker's compensationhand injuryfinger amputationpermanent partial disabilityloss of usemedical testimonyappellate affirmationsaw accidentlabor capacitylegal precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2009

Trzaska v. Allied Frozen Storage, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to sever workers' compensation claims from their personal injury action. The appellate court, composed of Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Green, and Gorski, JJ., unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the denial of the severance motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSeverance MotionAppellate ReviewSupreme CourtErie CountyOrder Denial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bentley v. Bunton

The case involves Bentley suing Bunton and Gates for defamation. The jury found both defendants acted with actual malice and conspired to defame Bentley, but the trial court did not impose joint and several liability, which the court of appeals affirmed. Justice Baker dissents from the Supreme Court's decision to remand, arguing that Gates should be held jointly and severally liable for all damages due to the conspiracy and that the Court improperly conducted a factual sufficiency review of the mental anguish damages award. The dissenting opinion emphasizes established legal principles regarding civil conspiracy and the limited scope of the Supreme Court's appellate review concerning damages.

DefamationActual MaliceCivil ConspiracyJoint and Several LiabilityMental Anguish DamagesAppellate ReviewFirst Amendment RightsPublic FigureTexas Supreme CourtDissenting Opinion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manago v. Barnhart

Claimant Joseph Manago appealed an ALJ decision denying disability benefits for severe depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress secondary to gender identity disorder. The appeal argued that the ALJ failed to apply proper legal principles in determining the onset and severity of mental impairments. The court reviewed the record, including claimant's testimony, work history, and multiple medical expert opinions, particularly Dr. Wheeler's finding of a 'psychiatric collapse' in 1986 and ongoing total disability. The court reversed the ALJ's finding that disability did not begin prior to June 30, 1990. The case was remanded for calculation of benefits, with the onset date fixed at March 14, 1990, to account for record inconsistencies.

Gender Identity DisorderTranssexualismDisability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActMental ImpairmentDepressionAnxietyPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderOnset DateALJ Decision Appeal
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Streeter v. Joint Industry Board of Electrical Industry

Plaintiffs Annette Streeter and Ivette Ellis were terminated from an electrician's apprenticeship program in early 1988, alleging sexual harassment and discriminatory treatment. They filed administrative charges, and subsequently, this Title VII and New York Human Rights Law action against Local Union No. 3, NYECA, AEC, and JIB. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint based on subject matter jurisdiction (failure to name all defendants in administrative complaints), timeliness of claims, and lack of liability for alleged discriminatory acts, and also moved for severance of claims. The court denied most of the defendants' motions, holding that the single filing rule applies, further inquiry is needed into the integrated enterprise theory for defendants' relationship, claims were timely under continuing violation and equitable principles, and plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded discriminatory discharge and hostile environment claims. The court also denied the motion for severance and declined to dismiss pendent state claims.

DiscriminationSexual HarassmentTitle VIIApprenticeship ProgramLabor UnionEmployer AssociationIntegrated EnterpriseSubject Matter JurisdictionTimelinessContinuing Violation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balding v. Tennessee Department of Employment Security

This case involves former employees of Wilson & Company who sought unemployment compensation benefits after their employment was terminated due to a plant closure. They had received severance pay according to a contract between their union, United Packing House Workers of America, and Wilson & Company. Initial administrative decisions and the Chancery Court denied benefits, ruling that severance pay disqualified them. The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed whether severance pay constituted 'wages' for the post-severance period, disqualifying them under the Tennessee Employment Security Law. The Court held that severance pay was 'with respect to' personal services rendered prior to the severance date, not after. It concluded that the appellants were 'unemployed' as of the severance date and were eligible for benefits. Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the chancellor.

Unemployment Benefits EligibilitySeverance PayWages DefinitionTennessee Employment Security LawStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining AgreementPlant ClosureAppellate ReviewDisqualification CriteriaEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Robinson v. National Vacuum Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to sever workers’ compensation claims from their personal injury action. The appeal was heard by Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the original order, concurring with the reasons stated in the Supreme Court's decision.

AppealSeveranceWorkers' Compensation ClaimsPersonal Injury ActionMotion DenialSupreme Court OrderAffirmationJudicial ReviewErie County
References
0
Case No. SCR No. 40/12; SCR No. 41/12
Regular Panel Decision

Norris v. Social Services Employee Union 371

This small claims action, consolidated for trial, involved two former union staff members, Aubrey Norris and Reuben Adeshuko, suing SSEU Local 371 for alleged underpayment of severance. Claimants argued that a long-standing union practice entitled them to three weeks' severance pay upon termination, but they only received two weeks after new leadership took over on May 2, 2011. The defendant contended that the standard policy was two weeks' severance and that the new leadership formally instituted this policy on May 4, 2011. The court found no written severance policy, which violated Labor Law § 195, and concluded that the credible evidence supported the claimants' reliance on a three-week severance practice. The judgment was entered in favor of the claimants for the outstanding severance amount plus interest.

Severance Pay DisputeUnion EmploymentLabor Law ViolationStatute of FraudsOral Policy EnforcementEmployment TerminationWorkers' RightsAFSCME RegulationsConsolidated CasesNew York Courts
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,360 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