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

Pedone v. B & B Equipment Co.

In a personal injury action, the plaintiff sued B & B Equipment Co., Inc., alleging a defective backhoe caused injury. A jury found B & B negligent but not the proximate cause. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, set aside this verdict and granted a new trial on causation. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the jury's verdict, finding it supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly given conflicting testimony about how the accident occurred and the jury's role in assessing witness credibility. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentBackhoe AccidentCausationCPLR 4404
References
9
Case No. ADJ8258390, ADJ8246247, ADJ9024430
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

HAMIDULLAH SARWARY vs. WALGREENS FAMILY OF COMPANIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a finding that he failed to prove his employer violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating him after resolving his workers' compensation claims. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior order, finding the judge's decision lacked clarity regarding evidence of termination and temporal proximity between settlement and separation. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to develop the record on whether the applicant was terminated due to his settlement and if such termination was necessitated by business realities.

Labor Code section 132aRetaliationDiscriminationTerminationCompromise and ReleasePrima facie caseBusiness realitiesTemporal proximityDisadvantageous treatmentWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
20
Case No. ADJ5631403 ADJ8129890 ADJ9031437 ADJ7129072 ADJ8214161
Regular
Aug 12, 2019

VALERIE SPENCER vs. MENDON AND MENDON, INC., dba MENDON'S NURSERY

This case concerns Valerie Spencer's claim that her employer, Mendon and Mendon, Inc., violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating her employment due to her workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board rescinded a prior finding, concluding that the employer's actions constituted discrimination under section 132a. This decision was based on the close temporal proximity between the notice of representation and termination, and the employer's failure to establish a legitimate business reason. Issues regarding penalty amounts, lost wages, and reinstatement are deferred for further proceedings.

Labor Code 132aDiscriminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ClaimTerminationNotice of RepresentationPrima Facie CaseBusiness Realities DefensePretextLost Wages
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of West v. Piel's Brewery, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier disputing a decision awarding benefits to a claimant. The claimant was injured when struck by a fellow worker with a beer ease. While the appellants acknowledged the initial argument was work-connected, they argued the subsequent assault was personal, occurring after the claimant was ordered back to work. However, the Board found that the events transpired in close temporal proximity, constituting no 'cooling-off period,' as the claimant pursued the assailant who had threatened to get a knife. Therefore, the Board concluded the incident was connected to employment. The decision was affirmed.

Workplace InjuryAssault at WorkWorkers' Compensation AppealCourse of EmploymentCooling-Off PeriodFellow Worker DisputePersonal Matter Defense
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Giraldo

The case concerns a defendant indicted for cocaine possession, who moved to suppress evidence found during an apartment search. Police agents gained entry by falsely claiming to be gas company workers investigating a leak, then identified themselves and obtained written consent to search. The court ruled that the entry, achieved through deceptive inducement of fear, was illegal and rendered the initial consent involuntary. Furthermore, the subsequent written consent was not purged of this illegality due to the temporal proximity and absence of intervening circumstances. Consequently, the court granted the motion to suppress the evidence.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsentDeceptionMotion to SuppressIllegally Obtained EvidencePublic PolicyGas Leak RuseVoluntariness of ConsentTaint Doctrine
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Norberg v. Pepsi Cola Buffalo Bottling Corp.

The claimant suffered a neck injury at work in December 1997, subsequently experiencing numbness and being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causal relationship between the accident and the aggravation of multiple sclerosis. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision due to insufficient medical evidence supporting the causal link. The appeals court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the treating physician's opinion on causation, based solely on temporal proximity and lacking scientific support, was speculative and therefore justifiably disregarded.

Multiple SclerosisCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating PhysicianSpeculationTemporal ProximityAggravation of InjuryNeck InjuryAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ9298865
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

Oscar Scagliotti vs. Elmore Toyota

This case concerns Oscar Scagliotti's claim of retaliatory termination by Elmore Toyota in violation of Labor Code section 132a. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision, finding that Scagliotti established a prima facie case by showing his termination occurred immediately after he left work for industrial injury treatment. The Board found Elmore Toyota's stated reason of leaving without permission was not credible and contradicted by the close temporal proximity to his injury notification and deviation from standard procedures. Compensation and penalties are deferred pending further proceedings at the trial level.

Labor Code 132aRetaliationDiscriminationIndustrial InjuryPrima Facie ClaimTerminationReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical TreatmentDisadvantageous Treatment
References
24
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03320 [42 NY3d 708]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

People v. Wright

Freddie T. Wright appealed his conviction, challenging the denial of his Batson challenge to the People's peremptory strikes on prospective jurors and his motion to suppress identification testimony. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding record support for the race-neutral reasons provided for the strikes. The Court also concluded that the showup identification procedure used by the police was not unduly suggestive given its close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime. The dissent raised concerns regarding the trial court's Batson analysis and the suggestiveness of the identification procedures.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationshowup identificationunduly suggestivedue processcriminal procedureappellate reviewtrial court discretion
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynoso v. All Foods, Inc.

Ana Reynoso sued All Foods, Inc. alleging gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. The Defendant moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court granted the motion to dismiss the gender discrimination claim, finding the plaintiff failed to plead specific gender-based adverse employment actions. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the hostile work environment and retaliation claims, concluding that Reynoso sufficiently pleaded facts to support these claims, including severe and pervasive harassment and a causal connection for retaliation based on temporal proximity to her termination.

Title VIIGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Prima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionTemporal ProximitySupervisor Harassment
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1998

People v. Butler

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree for participating in the theft of personal items from a woman in Albany. The defendant appealed the judgment, challenging two showup identifications as unduly suggestive and claiming the victim's intoxication rendered the identification procedure suggestive. The court found that the showup identifications were conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime and were not suggestive. Furthermore, the court rejected the claim that the victim's intoxication made the procedure unduly suggestive, noting it was a point for cross-examination at trial. The court also dismissed the defendant's claim regarding being unadvised of grand jury proceedings, stating the motion was untimely and the People had satisfied their burden by timely notifying the defendant's attorney. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

RobberySecond Degree RobberyShowup IdentificationGrand Jury ProceedingsAdmissibility of EvidenceDue ProcessCriminal Procedure LawAlbanyAppealWitness Identification
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 700 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