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. 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

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ1807928 (SRO 0124410)
Regular
Jul 22, 2010

WYNETTE BAIN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SONOMA DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER; Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) award finding the applicant $100\%$ totally permanently disabled. The defendant challenged the $100\%$ disability rating, permanent and stationary date, apportionment, discovery denials, and attorney fee calculation. The WCAB granted reconsideration to address the weekly permanent disability rate and attorney fee, based on a prior commutation, but affirmed the $100\%$ disability finding as supported by substantial medical evidence from the Agreed Medical Examiner. Discovery denials were upheld due to lack of diligence, and the functional capacity evaluation was excluded as hearsay.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerVocational ExpertReconsiderationFindings Award OrderCommutationAttorney FeesLegally Uninsured
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. ADJ4118575 (MON 0342974)
Regular
May 26, 2010

MANUEL ORTIZ vs. TOWER INDUSTRIES, INC., SCIF INSURED INLAND EMPIRE

This case involves an applicant who sustained severe injuries in a riding accident, including multiple pelvic fractures and urological damage, requiring extensive surgeries. The applicant was awarded 100% permanent disability due to his constant pain, limited mobility, and functional impairments, including urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. The defendant appealed, arguing the 100% disability rating was not justified and disputing the findings of sleep disorder and erectile dysfunction. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the applicant's 100% permanent disability, finding the evidence supported total permanent disability based on the facts of his severe injury and ongoing functional limitations. The Board denied the defendant's petitions for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityPetitions for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAgreed Medical ExaminersLabor Code Section 4662Pelvis InjuryLower Extremity InjuryUrethra InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ3632525 (SBR 0271054) ADJ4163174 (SBR 0271055)
Regular
Nov 08, 2016

RANDAL DELAO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves two industrial injuries on June 13, 1996, and July 31, 1996, to the applicant's back, psyche, and internal systems. The defendant sought reconsideration of a decision that awarded 100% permanent disability for the July 31, 1996 injury, subsuming a prior 45.3% rating for the June 13, 1996 injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to amend a finding of fact to correct the date of injury referenced for the 100% permanent disability award. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the disability from the July 31, 1996 injury is subsumed within the 100% permanent disability attributed to the June 13, 1996 injury.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentReconsiderationDate of InjuryCompensable ConsequenceAgreed Medical EvaluatorsMultiple Disabilities TableSubsumed DisabilityPermanent Total Disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ1584272
Regular
Dec 03, 2010

RICHARD SILVA vs. PAZIN & MYERS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding of 100% permanent disability for the applicant's back and psyche injuries. The Board found that the workers' compensation judge properly applied the 1997 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities due to pre-existing medical reports indicating permanent disability. Substantial evidence, including the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion on permanent total disability and the applicant's treating psychologist's opinion, supported the 100% disability rating. The defendant failed to meet its burden to prove apportionment of the disability.

ADJ1584272FRE 0244029Pazin & MyersInc.State Compensation Insurance FundFindings and AwardSeptember 142010industrial injuryback
References
8
Case No. ADJ9171432
Regular
Apr 25, 2016

Kenneth Evanoff vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The applicant, previously awarded 96% permanent disability for a 2007 injury, suffered a subsequent injury in 2012 resulting in prostate cancer. The initial award used the Combined Values Chart to calculate the combined disability at 98%, entitling him to benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). The applicant argues the trial judge erred by using the Combined Values Chart and seeks to simply add the disability percentages, leading to a 100% combined disability. The Board granted reconsideration, finding that in the absence of overlapping disabilities, the disabilities should be added, entitling the applicant to a 100% permanent disability rating and remanding for a new award.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFCumulative Trauma InjuryPermanent DisabilityCombined Values ChartLabor Code section 4664(c)(1)(G)Whole Person ImpairmentWPIDate of InjuryDate of Knowledge
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Case No. ADJ3090848
Regular
Jan 27, 2010

BOB CROUSE vs. ALADDIN'S ELECTRIC COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's award, which found applicant 100% permanently disabled following an industrial injury. Defendant argued against the 100% disability finding, citing insufficient medical evidence and procedural errors. While affirming the 100% disability finding as supported by substantial evidence, the Board amended the award to explicitly state applicant failed to prove industrial injury to his heart or for diabetes. The Board also clarified that a prior petition for reconsideration by the defendant was already addressed and granted in 2007.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardshop supervisorindustrial injuryleft shoulderleft clavicleright elbowright handheadneck
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,138 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