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. ADJ 7762176
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

MARTIN ESPARZA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns an applicant with an admitted industrial injury who was medically cleared for modified duty. The employer refused to rehire the applicant due to his inability to provide documentation of his legal U.S. work status, despite having available modified work. The applicant is receiving temporary disability benefits, which the employer seeks to terminate, arguing the applicant is partially disabled and his inability to work is due to immigration status, not the injury. The Workers' Compensation Judge recommended denying the employer's petition, citing that California law extends all state protections to employees regardless of immigration status.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Disability BenefitsLegally EmployableModified DutyAlternate WorkImmigration StatusUndocumented WorkerLawfully EmployedSocial Security NumberIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2007

Mattison v. Potter

Plaintiff Joy L. Mattison, an African-American female, sued her employer, the United States Postal Service, and its Postmaster General, John E. Potter, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. Mattison claimed she experienced a hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation due to race, sex, and disability, stemming from alleged harassment by co-workers and supervisors after she reported an overtime issue. She experienced anxiety/depression and requested reasonable accommodation to avoid her original work unit. After various internal processes and EEOC complaints, the defendant moved for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment, finding that several claims were abandoned and that Mattison failed to present sufficient evidence for a racially or sexually hostile work environment. Furthermore, the court determined her depressive disorder did not 'substantially limit' a major life activity under the Rehabilitation Act, as her work restriction was specific to one unit rather than a broad class of jobs. The Chief Judge adopted the recommendation, granting summary judgment to the defendants and closing the case.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRehabilitation ActHostile Work EnvironmentDisparate TreatmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentFederal CourtDisability DiscriminationDepressive Disorder
References
52
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. ADJ3134805 (BAK 0148440)
Regular
Feb 11, 2011

VELGRACE SMITH vs. KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

This case concerns a defendant seeking reconsideration of a decision that awarded a 15% increase in permanent disability indemnity payments. The administrative law judge (WCJ) found the employer failed to offer modified work within 60 days of the applicant's condition becoming permanent and stationary, as required by Labor Code section 4658(d)(2). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ's literal interpretation of the statute would lead to absurd consequences given the retroactive nature of medical findings and delayed service of reports. The Board held the 60-day period begins when the employer has knowledge of both the permanent and stationary status and work restrictions, and remanded the case to determine if the employer's modified work offer remained consistent with updated restrictions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityModified WorkLabor Code Section 4658(d)AggravationCumulative InjuryAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent and Stationary DateWork Restrictions
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cepeda v. Goord

This case involves a petitioner who was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule for refusing to obey a direct order to report for work at the facility's law library. The petitioner argued that it was not one of his regularly-scheduled work days and that the misbehavior report was filed in retaliation for a prior lawsuit. However, the court found substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt, citing the misbehavior report and testimony from the reporting officer and the petitioner himself. The court also stated that the petitioner's arguments regarding his work schedule and retaliation were irrelevant or issues of credibility for the Hearing Officer. The determination was confirmed and the petition dismissed.

Prison Disciplinary RuleRefusal to Obey OrderMisbehavior ReportCorrection OfficerLaw LibrarySubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueRetaliation ClaimInmate MisconductJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parris v. ACME Bus Corp.

Pro se plaintiff Debbie L. Parris brought an action against Acme Bus Corp., alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Brown issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) suggesting the motion be granted due to plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case or rebut defendant's legitimate reason for termination (unexcused absence). After a de novo review of plaintiff's objections, District Judge Joseph F. Bianco adopted the R&R in its entirety, granting summary judgment to the defendant and dismissing the complaint. The court found no evidence to support an inference of racial discrimination, a hostile work environment, or a cognizable retaliation claim.

Title VIIRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawFederal Civil ProcedureMagistrate Judge R&RDe Novo Review
References
33
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1980

In re the Claim of Caruso

This case concerns an appeal by Professional Data Services, Inc. from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The board affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's ruling that a claimant, who worked from home as a key punch operator for Professional Data Services, Inc., was an employee rather than an independent contractor, making her eligible for benefits. The employer provided equipment, controlled work distribution, and set deadlines, which were key factors in determining the employment relationship. The court rejected the employer's argument that a signed contract classifying the claimant as an independent contractor was binding, citing concerns about duress and the Industrial Commissioner's statutory authority to determine employment status under Labor Law § 597. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the employer-employee relationship.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance benefitsLabor LawSubstantial evidenceContractual agreementDuressAdministrative Law JudgeAppeal Board decisionKey punch operator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. Siara Management, Inc.

Claimant, a custodian, sustained two work-related injuries in 2000, and his workers' compensation benefits were approved. In 2003, the employer's workers' compensation carrier requested an independent medical examination (IME) by Charles Totero. Claimant moved to preclude Totero's report, arguing it was improperly mailed by UMC Medical Consultants, EC., an IME services company, instead of Totero himself, in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 137. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied the motion, finding UMC, as Totero's direct employer and a registered IME company, was authorized to perform administrative services like mailing reports under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (e) (1). The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that the submission substantially complied with statutory requirements.

IME Report AdmissibilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 137Procedural ComplianceMedical Report MailingIME Services CompanyAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIndependent Medical Examiner12 NYCRR 300.2
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 11,781 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