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 06850 [212 AD3d 126]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2022

Matter of Levi v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Petitioner, a licensed chiropractor, was removed from the list of authorized medical providers by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board after an investigation revealed he received unlawful payments from a durable medical equipment (DME) supplier, Elite Medical Supply of New York, LLC. This was deemed a violation of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-d (2) (g), 13-l (10) (g) and 8 NYCRR 29.1 (b) (3). Petitioner challenged this removal via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting a statutory right to a hearing before the Chiropractic Practice Committee (CPC) prior to removal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed. The appellate court held that while Workers' Compensation Law § 13-l (10) outlines a CPC hearing process, the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board also possesses independent authority under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-l (12) and 13-d (1) to investigate and remove a provider without a hearing when the underlying facts, such as petitioner's admitted receipt of unlawful payments, are undisputed and do not present questions of fact.

ChiropractorMedical ProviderAuthorization RemovalUnlawful PaymentsDurable Medical EquipmentWorkers' Compensation BoardProfessional MisconductDue ProcessAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seo v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

The claimant, a limousine driver for UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc., was injured in an automobile accident while driving home from work. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied benefits, ruling the injuries did not arise from employment. Eagle Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which initially reversed the WCLJ, deeming the claimant an 'outside worker' eligible for 'portal to portal' coverage. UTOG appealed this reversal, but the full Board rescinded the decision and referred it back. Upon reconsideration, the Board panel determined that Eagle lacked standing as it was not a party in interest under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and affirmed the WCLJ's denial of benefits. Eagle then appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the Board's decision, citing prior cases, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Automobile AccidentLimousine DriverWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStanding to AppealNo-Fault Insurance CarrierOutside WorkerPortal to Portal CoverageAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationRemittal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mihalaris v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

A limousine driver, who leased his vehicle from Augie’s Auto Repair, Inc. (Augie) and was dispatched by UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc. (UTOG), was assaulted and injured during a vehicle theft while working. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the driver a general employee of Augie and a special employee of UTOG, apportioning liability. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, finding the driver solely an employee of UTOG, discharging Augie based on an interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (4) regarding lessor/owner control. UTOG and its carrier appealed, arguing the Board misapplied the law concerning taxicab drivers, contending the control-related factors only apply when the owner operates the taxicab 40+ hours weekly. The Appellate Court reversed the Board's decision, stating the Board incorrectly applied the statute by requiring control factors for Augie when the 40-hour exception was not met, and remitted the matter for a decision consistent with the controlling statute.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployment RelationshipLimousine DriverTaxicab DriversStatutory InterpretationLessor-Lessee RelationshipGeneral EmploymentSpecial EmploymentAppellate ReviewRemand
References
7
Case No. Action No. 1; Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2005

Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 v. Schwartz

This case consolidates two appeals arising from a 1985 real estate exchange involving Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 AFL-CIO (TWU) and 80 W.E.T.H. Corp. (80 WETH). Action No. 1 targeted real estate agents Alan G. Schwartz, Glen Allen Associates, Ltd., and Glen Equities, Ltd. for breach of fiduciary duty, contract, and constructive fraud. Action No. 2 was against attorney Richard L. O’Hara for breach of fiduciary duty and actual fraud. The court affirmed summary judgment for the Schwartz defendants, ruling claims time-barred under the statute of limitations, rejecting continuous representation and equitable estoppel. In the O'Hara action, breach of fiduciary duty claims were also dismissed as time-barred, but the actual fraud claim, initially preserved, was modified on appeal to be dismissed for 80 WETH. The disputes centered on undisclosed fees and potential conflicts of interest during the 1985 transaction.

Real Estate LawStatute of LimitationsBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelContinuous Representation DoctrineBrokerage FeesAttorney MisconductActual FraudConstructive Fraud
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07633 [189 AD3d 1831]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Karwowska v. Air Tech Lab, Inc.

Three claimants appealed Workers' Compensation Board (Board) decisions denying their applications for review of Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) findings. The Board denied the applications because the claimants failed to fully complete question number 15 on their RB-89 forms, which required specifying the objection or exception made to the WCLJ's ruling and when it was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, stating that the Board has discretion to deny review when parties represented by counsel fail to comply with its procedural requirements. The court found that the claimants' responses were deficient as they only identified when the objection was made, not the specific objection itself, thus violating 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1), (2) (ii).

Workers' Compensation LawBoard ReviewProcedural ComplianceApplication for ReviewRB-89 formAdministrative ReviewWCLJ DecisionAppellate ProcedureRegulatory ComplianceClaim Denied
References
13
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1981

Blyer v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

The National Labor Relations Board sought a preliminary injunction against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear, and Allied Workers’ Union, International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union (ILG) for alleged unfair labor practices under NLRA Section 8(b)(4)(D), related to picketing for a jobber’s agreement. The court examined the applicability of the garment-industry proviso in NLRA Section 8(e) to the alleged work-assignment dispute. It found that the Board's theory was novel and lacked sufficient factual findings. Considering factors like the ILG's initial lawful picketing, the employer's non-innocent status, and the desire to preserve the status quo, the court denied the injunction, concluding it would be inequitable and improper.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticePreliminary InjunctionNLRAGarment Industry ProvisoWork Assignment DisputeJobber's AgreementPicketingSecondary BoycottGarment Union
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schwartz v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed April 25, 2012, ruled that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to her established work-related stress claim. The second decision, filed May 2, 2012, denied her payment for intermittent lost time. The court affirmed both decisions, finding that the employer's independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions regarding cardiac conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's determination that the claimant's Friday absences were for convenience, not disability, was also upheld by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealsCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyEnlarged Left AtriumWork-Related StressAdjustment DisorderIntermittent Lost Time Benefits
References
4
Case No. 533245
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Adam Schulze

Claimant, a firefighter, sustained a work-related neck and back injury in April 2012 and was classified as permanently partially disabled in 2015. The self-insured employer, City of Newburgh Fire Department, paid full salary under General Municipal Law § 207-a (1). In 2016, claimant's disability retirement was approved, and the employer began paying the difference between his pension and regular wages per General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Claimant sought retroactive workers' compensation awards from April 2016. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the employer was not entitled to reimbursement for payments made under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) against workers' compensation awards, as these payments were not considered 'wages'. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that supplemental retirement benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) do not constitute wages for reimbursement purposes under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) or § 30 (2), aligning with prior precedent.

Firefighter disabilityWorkers' compensation benefitsGeneral Municipal LawReimbursementSupplemental pension paymentsAccidental disability retirementPerformance of duty disabilityAppellate DivisionThird Judicial DepartmentWorkers' Compensation Board jurisdiction
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02101, 44 NY3d 45
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

Matter of Schulze v. City of Newburgh Fire Dept.

This case addresses whether the City of Newburgh Fire Department can be reimbursed from workers' compensation benefits for payments made to a disabled firefighter, Adam Schulze, under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Schulze, a retired firefighter with performance of duty (POD) disability retirement, received supplemental payments from the City and workers' compensation awards. The City sought reimbursement, arguing its General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments constituted "salary or wages" or "payments to an employee in like manner as wages" under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 30 (2) or 25 (4) (a). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of reimbursement, holding that General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments are pension supplements, not wages, and are made to retired individuals, not employees. The Court clarified that the proper statutory mechanism for the employer to reduce duplicative benefits is General Municipal Law § 207-a (4-a), which allows for the reduction of future General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments by the amount of workers' compensation awards.

Workers' CompensationFirefighter DisabilityGeneral Municipal LawRetirement BenefitsReimbursementPension SupplementsStatutory InterpretationNew York State LawCourt of AppealsPublic Employment
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 23,668 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