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
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bressor v. Marriott Corp.

Claimant, a revenue reporting clerk, developed seizures linked to work-related stress, initially in January 1990 and again in January 1995 after increased duties. He filed a workers' compensation claim in May 1995. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the claim untimely, ruling the accident occurred in January 1990. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the January 1995 recurrence due to new stress constituted a separate, timely accident. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings to determine if the seizure disorder actually constituted an accident and its causal relationship to the job stress.

seizure disorderepilepsywork-related stresstimeliness of claimstatute of limitationsoccupational accidentBoard decisionappellate reviewremittalcausal relationship
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dicob v. Amf Bowling, Inc.

Claimant sustained work-related back injuries in 1995 and 1999. The 1995 claim was reopened and later closed without prejudice to Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The employer's carrier sought to shift liability for the 1995 claim to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. A workers' compensation law judge and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this shift. The Special Fund appealed, arguing the Board's decision constituted an unexplained departure from prior precedent regarding cases closed without prejudice to apportionment. The appellate court agreed, finding the Board failed to justify its departure, and consequently modified the decision, reversing the liability shift and remitting the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial FundReopened CasesApportionmentLiability ShiftBoard PrecedentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBack InjuryEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Supinski v. Bankers Trust Co.

The claimant, a former vice-president at an employer bank, appealed two Workers’ Compensation Board decisions from November 29, 1994, and May 8, 1995, which had reopened her case and remitted it for new hearings regarding her inflammatory bowel syndrome disability claim. Despite receiving multiple opportunities, the claimant failed to appear at any of the scheduled hearings or provide witnesses. Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge issued an order on June 13, 1995, closing the matter. The current appeals were dismissed because they were interlocutory and did not involve threshold legal issues. Furthermore, the claimant failed to appeal the June 1995 WCLJ decision to the Board, rendering it final and mooting the earlier Board decisions.

Workers' Compensation AppealInterlocutory AppealAppeal DismissalFailure to AppearMootness DoctrineBoard DecisionsWCLJ OrderDisability ClaimInflammatory Bowel SyndromeProcedural Issues
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stabak v. ISS International

The case involves a claimant appealing three decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claimant, a former maintenance worker, alleged an injury in November 1991, which he did not report, followed by his termination in December 1991. His initial workers' compensation claim was disallowed in March 1995 due to insufficient notice, and reconsideration was denied in June 1996. Separately, in October 1995, he filed a discrimination claim under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge, which was dismissed as untimely in November 1996. The court dismissed the appeal from the March 1995 decision as untimely filed. It affirmed the Board’s decisions from June 1996 and November 1996, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration and that the discrimination claim was indeed untimely.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUntimely AppealTimely FilingNotice of InjuryAbuse of DiscretionDenial of ReconsiderationAppellate ReviewDiscriminatory PracticeEmployment Termination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Saczawa v. United Parcel Service

Claimant was injured in 1982 and received workers' compensation benefits until 1984. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially closed the case in 1985, finding no further causally related disability. The case was reopened in 1989 due to a medical form indicating a change in condition, and benefits were awarded from May 1989 onwards. Following further proceedings, the Board awarded claimant benefits for the period between February 1984 and May 1989 in a decision filed January 13, 1995. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied by the Board on May 17, 1995. The appellate court affirmed the denial of reconsideration, citing the claimant's failure to timely appeal the January 1995 decision and noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion as no new information was presented.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsReconsideration DenialAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousTimeliness of AppealMedical Condition ChangeBoard DecisionNew York Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 1997

Claim of Krisher v. Graver Tank Manufacturing Co.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) that found no causally related disability during the period of April 10, 1995, to June 17, 1996. The claimant had sustained a back injury in 1990, followed by surgery in 1994, and later developed a left knee injury, leading to surgery in February 1995. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits for reduced earnings, but the WCB modified this, concluding there was no causally related disability. The appellate court affirmed the WCB's decision, citing testimony from orthopedic surgeon Roy Wert that the claimant could return to work without restrictions by April 1995. Another orthopedic surgeon, George Fuksa, opined that the knee injury was preexisting and not a result of the back surgery.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityBack InjuryKnee InjuryMedical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeonReduced EarningsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePreexisting Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spinnato v. GE Advanced Materials

Claimant, an electrical technician, experienced a compensable back injury in 1995, leading to a claim managed by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. In August 2006, he suffered a sharp pain in his right knee, prompting a new claim for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed the new claim, amending the 1995 claim for consequential knee injuries. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, establishing a new claim based on medical evidence of direct knee injury. The employer appealed, and the higher court reversed the Board's decision, finding that it was not supported by substantial evidence due to the speculative and incomplete nature of the medical opinion relied upon. The court highlighted that Dr. Nunez, who opined the 2006 injuries were unrelated to the 1995 injury, was unaware of crucial aspects of the claimant's medical history. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hodge v. New York College of Podiatric Medicine

Dr. William Hodge, a 67-year-old professor employed by St. John's College since 1973, faced non-renewal of his contract in February 1993, with the defendant citing his high salary. Despite a history of excellent performance reviews and a faculty committee ruling that there was insufficient cause for non-renewal, plaintiff entered into an agreement in April 1994. This agreement stipulated his continued employment until June 30, 1995, in exchange for withdrawing his age discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After his contract was not renewed in 1995, Dr. Hodge filed a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in August 1995. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, deeming the claim time-barred. The court ruled that Dr. Hodge's claim was filed more than 90 days after the termination of the EEOC proceedings, and that by accepting the benefits of the 1994 agreement, he had ratified the contract, making the withdrawal of his EEOC charge effective despite any potential non-compliance with the Older Workers’ Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA) requirements.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ContractNon-renewalEEOCStatute of LimitationsOWBPAWaiverRatificationMotion to DismissFederal Court
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1997

Camarda v. New York Telephone

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board, which ruled that she voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. The claimant had injured her back in May 1995 but accepted an employer's retirement incentive package and retired in September 1995. She contended that the Board erred by treating her retirement as an automatic disqualification. The court found substantial evidence that financial considerations, not her back condition, motivated her decision to retire, as she stated she would not have retired without the incentive and did not claim her injury was a factor. Therefore, the Board's decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketRetirement IncentiveDisabilityFinancial ConsiderationsBack InjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewFactual Issue
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 264 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