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. 2022 NY Slip Op 01874
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Cherrington v. New York City Tr. Auth.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order that denied a petition to vacate an arbitration award, which had upheld a 25-day suspension for petitioner Norris Cherrington. The court found the arbitrator's decision was not irrational, as it was justified by Cherrington's violation of a zero-tolerance policy for workplace violence. Petitioners' argument regarding the lack of explanation for a retreat path was deemed beyond judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, the award did not violate public policy, as disciplining an employee for workplace violence is permissible, and no explicit conflict with anti-discrimination laws was found, given the absence of disparate treatment claims for non-Black employees. The arbitrator had also declined the respondent's request to dismiss Cherrington.

Arbitration AwardWorkplace ViolenceEmployee DisciplinePublic PolicyJudicial ScrutinyAppellate ReviewSuspensionZero-Tolerance PolicyDiscrimination ClaimNew York City Transit Authority
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Commissioner of Labor

Petitioners, the City of New York and the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), along with three juvenile detention centers, initiated a proceeding to annul a 2010 decision by the State Industrial Board of Appeals. This decision upheld 2007 notices of violations (NOVs) issued against the centers for exposing employees to workplace violence, citing Labor Law § 27-a (3), the General Duty Clause. Petitioners argued the NOVs should have cited the more specific Workplace Violence Prevention Act (WVPA), Labor Law § 27-b. Respondents, District Council 37, the Commissioner of Labor, and the Board, contended that the WVPA could not be cited as its implementing regulations were not yet promulgated. The court, finding the Board's decision rational and consistent with statutory and regulatory schemes regarding "specific standards" under PESHA, denied the petition and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Workplace SafetyGeneral Duty ClauseWorkplace Violence Prevention ActPublic Employee Safety and Health ActAdministrative ReviewStatutory InterpretationPromulgation of RegulationsJuvenile Detention CentersNotice of ViolationRisk Evaluation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moodie v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Vincent Moodie, a Black male, sued the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for racial discrimination under Title VII after his termination due to an altercation with a white co-worker. Moodie claimed his dismissal was racially motivated and that the bank's stated reason—that he was the aggressor in a workplace fight—was a pretext. The incident involved Moodie confronting his co-worker, Tony Riolo, over a derogatory remark, which escalated into a physical engagement. The court, presided over by Judge Lasker, found that Moodie failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the bank's internal investigation or dismissal decision was tainted by racial prejudice. The complaint was therefore dismissed, as the bank provided credible non-discriminatory explanations for its actions and demonstrated a consistent policy regarding workplace violence.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIIWorkplace ViolenceWrongful TerminationEmployer PolicyPretextDisparate TreatmentInternal InvestigationFederal Reserve BankAggressor
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. ADJ7882792 (MF), ADJ7882793
Regular
Mar 09, 2023

KARIM ELANEH vs. EZ LUBE, CIGA for CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The employer challenged the judge's finding of 100% permanent disability, primarily disputing the reliance on the applicant's vocational expert over the defense's expert. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant's vocational expert's opinion more persuasive, citing the applicant's credible testimony and consistent inability to return to work since the 2011 injury. The judge concluded the applicant is totally and permanently disabled due to extensive physical and psychiatric limitations stemming from workplace violence.

Workplace violencevocational expertpermanent disabilityreconsiderationapportionmentAgreed Medical Examinerpsychiatric injuryPTSDGeneralized Anxiety DisorderMajor Depressive Disorder
References
0
Case No. ADJ3309906 (FRE 0246859)
Regular
Jul 22, 2014

TIMETHY HURT vs. CITY OF LINDSAY, A.I.M.S. INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision that the City of Lindsay did not violate Labor Code section 132a by terminating his employment. The applicant was terminated for engaging in workplace violence, specifically a fight where he admitted to using a metal pipe. Evidence indicated the termination was based on this violent conduct, which violated city personnel rules, and not for filing a workers' compensation claim, as the claim was filed after his termination. The Board concluded the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under section 132a.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Orderworkplace fightself-defensetermination of employmentdiscriminationCity of Lindsayassault with a deadly weaponPenal Code section 245(a)(1)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Pierre

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which had disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The Board found that the claimant, employed as a security officer, was discharged after he threatened, used profanity towards, and lunged at a supervisor following a verbal directive, necessitating restraint and police intervention. This conduct was deemed a violation of the employer's policy against workplace violence. Despite the claimant offering a different account of the incident, the Board credited the testimony of the employer's witnesses. Consequently, the Board's determination of disqualifying misconduct, supported by substantial evidence, was affirmed on appeal.

MisconductUnemployment InsuranceAppeal BoardSecurity OfficerThreatening BehaviorProfanityInsubordinationSupervisorSubstantial EvidencePolicy Violation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2015

Matter of Cuva v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant, an employee of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after an incident with a subordinate in March 2013, alleging work-related stress, anxiety, and PTSD. She stopped working in June 2014 due to her mental health issues. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim, finding the stress was not greater than that experienced in a normal work environment and her workplace violence claim was unsubstantiated. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was further upheld on appeal. The court found that the incident was an isolated act of insubordination and not extraordinary enough to cause a compensable injury, deferring to the Board's credibility determinations regarding the claimant's account of events.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryMental InjuriesWork-Related StressAnxiety and DepressionPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Workplace ViolenceCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceSupervisor-Subordinate Dispute
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor

In this concurring opinion, Judge Abdus-Salaam argues against the majority's expansion of the workplace exception to the warrant requirement, asserting it infringes upon a government employee's reasonable expectation of privacy under the New York Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. The judge contends that placing a GPS device on a personal car to investigate workplace misconduct, even during work hours, requires a warrant. Citing cases like People v Weaver and United States v Jones, the opinion highlights the highly intrusive nature of GPS surveillance, which can reveal extensive personal information. It distinguishes the search of a personal vehicle from workplace searches permitted under O’Connor v Ortega, emphasizing that a personal car is outside the employer's control and traditional workplace boundaries. The opinion warns that allowing warrantless GPS tracking sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to widespread electronic surveillance of government employees based on a mere 'reasonableness' standard without judicial oversight.

GPS trackingWarrant requirementWorkplace exceptionFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionGovernment employeesPrivacy rightsWorkplace misconductElectronic surveillancePersonal vehicle search
References
11
Case No. ADJ9242655
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

Michelle Justus vs. Folsom-Cordova Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding treatment outside the Medical Provider Network (MPN). The WCJ correctly granted the applicant's motion to treat outside the MPN because the defendant failed to provide access within the required distance to the applicant's *present* workplace, not just the injury site. The Board affirmed that the term "workplace" in the regulation refers to the employee's current location of regular employment. Therefore, the defendant's argument that they met MPN access standards based on the former workplace was rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMPNPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ8 CCR section 9767.5(b)substantive rightliabilityinjury workplacepresent workplacegeographic location
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 585 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