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

In re the Arbitration between City of Amsterdam

Petitioner appealed an order denying its application to stay arbitration with respondent concerning a sick leave dispute. The dispute arose after petitioner sought reimbursement for sick leave paid to an employee, Richard Roginski, who was injured during outside employment. Petitioner argued that arbitration violated public policy, was precluded by Workers' Compensation Law, and that sick leave constituted an unconstitutional gift. The court affirmed the order, finding no significant public policy violation, clarifying that Workers' Compensation from an outside employer did not prevent sick leave use with the primary employer, and that sick leave provisions authorized by statute were not unconstitutional gifts.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSick Leave BenefitsPublic EmploymentWorkers' CompensationOutside EmploymentConstitutional ChallengeMunicipal LawGrievance ProcedureAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2008

Barresi v. County of Suffolk

The petitioner appealed an order and judgment dismissing their CPLR article 78 proceeding, which sought to compel a determination regarding back pay and sick leave benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. The initial claim was denied in 1992, and review was postponed until a worker's compensation decision in 2001. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed the petition based on the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches, as the petitioner failed to make a timely demand for GML § 207-c benefits after the worker's compensation decision. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the CPLR article 78 proceeding was untimely, as the statute of limitations expired even considering later correspondence as a demand and denial, and subsequent requests for reconsideration did not revive the claim.

CPLR Article 78MandamusBack PaySick Leave BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cStatute of LimitationsLachesWorker's Compensation ClaimAppeal DismissalGovernment Benefits
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2015

Gesualdi v. Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees and Fiduciaries of various Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training, and Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Funds, initiated an action against Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc. to recover unpaid liabilities and contributions. This action arose from two audits that identified delinquent contributions and the defendant's complete withdrawal from the Funds. Following Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.'s default, the Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke recommended granting the motion and awarding specific damages. District Judge Spatt subsequently adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, granting the default judgment and ordering damages totaling $156,898.74, along with daily interest, liquidated damages, audit fees, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Default JudgmentERISAUnpaid ContributionsWithdrawal LiabilityEmployee BenefitsMulti-employer PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementPrejudgment InterestLiquidated Damages
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jefferson v. Bronx Psychiatric Center

Claimant, an employee of the State of New York at the Bronx Psychiatric Center, sustained an injury and was disabled for 19 days. During this period, the employer paid full wages, charging the time against her accrued sick leave. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a referee's decision denying the employer reimbursement for the first 10 days of paid sick leave, as the sick leave was not restored to the claimant. The employer appealed, arguing its entitlement to reimbursement. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that payments made under statutory or collective bargaining agreement compulsion, where sick leave credits with monetary value are not restored, do not constitute advance payments for which reimbursement is due under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25(4)(a).

ReimbursementSick LeaveWorkers' Compensation LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdvance PaymentsState EmployeesDisability BenefitsEmployer ObligationCompulsory PaymentsVested Rights
References
7
Case No. 02 Civ. 7659(SAS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. NYC Transit Auth.

This case involves a dispute between several labor unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary regarding the legality of NYCTA's sick leave policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unions challenged the policy's medical inquiry requirements, arguing they violated ADA provisions against inquiries that may reveal a disability. The NYCTA justified its policy by citing the need to curb sick leave abuse and ensure workplace and public safety. The court applied the framework established in Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services. It found that curbing sick leave abuse was a legitimate business necessity but only justified the policy for employees on a narrowly-defined "sick leave control list." The court also determined that ensuring safety was a vital business necessity, justifying the policy for safety-sensitive employees, specifically bus operators, but required further factual development for other employee groups. Ultimately, the court issued a declaratory judgment, clarifying the permissible scope of the policy's medical inquiries and rejecting the Authority's defenses of unclean hands and laches.

ADA ComplianceSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiryEmployment DiscriminationBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyPublic SafetyLabor Union LitigationCollective BargainingBus Operator
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chavkin v. Santaella

The petitioner, a male probation officer in New York City, sought to use accrued sick leave in conjunction with infant care leave for his second child, but was denied based on a departmental regulation. This regulation permitted only pregnant female employees to utilize sick leave for infant care leave without requiring medical proof of disability. The petitioner filed a sex discrimination complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, which was dismissed for lack of probable cause, a decision upheld by the State Human Rights Appeal Board. The court found that the Division's investigation was inadequate and its interpretation of the regulation erroneous, noting that the policy appeared to discriminate by allowing mothers to use sick leave without proof of disability while denying fathers. Consequently, the court annulled the Board's determination and remanded the case to the State Division of Human Rights for further investigation and a consistent determination of rights.

Sex DiscriminationInfant Care LeaveSick Leave PolicyParental LeaveHuman Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationProbation OfficerNew York City Department of ProbationState Human Rights Appeal BoardRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1989

Morgan v. New York State Developmental Center

The employer appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which denied reimbursement for sick leave at half pay paid to the claimant. The Board argued that the claimant surrendered a valuable vested right by using sick leave, making it non-reimbursable. The court, however, found that the sick leave at half pay had no conversion value upon the claimant's employment termination and that the claimant lost nothing of value by using it. Consequently, the court deemed the Board's decision irrational and reversed it, remitting the case for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementSick LeaveAdvance PaymentsVested RightsEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wellington v. City of New York

This case involves three New York City police officers who, despite receiving full salaries under unlimited sick leave after work-related vehicle accidents in 1974, sued the City of New York for basic economic loss under the no-fault law. The central issue was whether sick leave benefits constituted an offset against no-fault benefits before a 1977 amendment. The court denied the City's cross-motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling that prior to the 1977 amendment, no-fault law did not expressly provide for sick leave benefits as an offset, thus allowing for what the Legislature later clarified as a 'double recovery.'

No-fault insurancesick leave benefitsdouble recoverywage continuation plansoffsetsfirst-party benefitseconomic losspolice officersstatutory interpretationsummary judgment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1987

In re the Claim of Rappaport

Claimant, a firefighter, sustained a broken wrist off-duty and was unable to work for approximately one year. After exhausting sick leave, he applied for unemployment insurance benefits, which the local office deemed him eligible for. The employer objected, arguing he was not totally unemployed while still on payroll due to converted vacation time used as sick leave. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, ruling that the converted sick leave did not constitute remuneration under Labor Law § 517 (2) (a), making the claimant eligible. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it rational and supported by substantial evidence regarding claimant's availability for light-duty employment.

unemployment insurance benefitssick leavevacation time conversiontotal unemploymentremunerationfirefighter injurylight duty availabilitycollective bargaining agreementadministrative law judgeappellate review
References
6
Case No. 02 Civ. 7659
Regular Panel Decision

Transport Workers Union v. New York City Transit Authority

This case addresses a conflict between the New York City Transit Authority's sick leave policy and its employees' privacy rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff unions sought a declaratory judgment that the Authority's policy, requiring medical inquiries for sick leave, violated the ADA. The court found that the policy's inquiries fall within the ADA's prohibition. However, the court ruled that the policy is justified by business necessity for employees on a sick leave control list to curb abuse and for safety-sensitive employees like bus operators. A further trial is required to determine if safety concerns justify the policy for other employee groups. The court ultimately allowed the policy's enforcement to continue for now, pending further factual development.

Americans with Disabilities ActSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiriesBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyAbsenteeism AbuseLabor UnionsPublic TransportationDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer Policy
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,100 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