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
Jun 25, 2008

Rodriguez v. Port Authority

Decedent, a police officer for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, died in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. His minor son received New Jersey workers' compensation death benefits. The claimant, decedent's domestic partner and the son's mother, sought New York death benefits for herself. She was awarded benefits commencing June 1, 2007, but the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board granted the employer a credit for the New Jersey payments made to the claimant on her son's behalf, denying her claim for the period between September 11, 2001, and June 1, 2007. The claimant appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the employer's entitlement to the credit, preventing an impermissible double recovery. However, the court modified the decision regarding the commencement date of the claimant's New York benefits, finding that New Jersey payments ended on February 17, 2007, not June 1, 2007, and remitted the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this finding.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath BenefitsSeptember 11 AttacksEmployer CreditDouble Recovery PrincipleDomestic Partner StatusInter-jurisdictional BenefitsRemandAppellate ReviewSelf-insured Employer
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barber v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant, who sustained a work-related injury in 1994, was awarded benefits for a moderate partial disability. A Workers’ Compensation Board panel affirmed in March 2006, finding insufficient medical evidence for total disability, but allowed reopening for additional evidence. After a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge modified the award in July 2006 for certain periods, the claimant sought reconsideration of the Board's March 2006 decision to increase the disability rate for an earlier period, which the Board denied in January 2007. The current appeal challenged the denial of reconsideration. The court affirmed the denial, stating that the merits of the March 2006 decision were not reviewable due to the claimant's failure to appeal it directly, and found no abuse of discretion or arbitrary action by the Board in denying reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationPartial DisabilityTotal DisabilityReconsideration DenialBoard ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Forshee v. Gates Albert, Inc.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the apportionment of his workers' compensation award. The claimant had prior back injuries in 1988 and 1995, leading to lump-sum settlements, and suffered another work-related back injury in 2007. Initially, a workers’ compensation law judge attributed the disability solely to the 2007 injury. However, the Board modified this, apportioning 20% to the 2007 injury and dividing the remainder between the 1988 and 1995 injuries. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence, including the opinion of a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, supported the apportionment.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentPermanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryPrior InjuriesLump-sum SettlementOrthopedic SurgeonMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weather v. Astrue

Plaintiff Jessica Weather sought judicial review after her application for Supplementary Security Income (SSI) benefits, alleging disability since June 2007, was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ's decision was affirmed by the Appeals Council. A Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the Commissioner's decision, finding the ALJ correctly assessed the plaintiff's residual functional capacity and credibility, despite objections concerning vocational expert consultation and consideration of all medical issues. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, affirmed the Commissioner's decision, and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

Social Security DisabilitySupplementary Security IncomeJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityCredibility AssessmentTreating Physician RuleVocational ExpertMedical EvidencePain Symptoms
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2008

Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Hynes-Cherin

The Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) challenged a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) decision prohibiting it from transporting high school students in Rochester, New York. The FTA asserted RGRTA's proposed "Express Service" violated federal statute 49 U.S.C. § 5323(f) by competing with private bus operators. The court found the FTA's October 12, 2007, decision, which rejected RGRTA's Express Service proposal, to be arbitrary and capricious. The judge ruled that the FTA improperly relied on RGRTA's subjective intent rather than objective criteria in its regulations for "tripper service" and that its interpretation contradicted its own prior rulings. Consequently, the court set aside the FTA's decision and extended a stay to allow RGRTA to implement its proposed service.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewFederal Transit AdministrationSchool Bus TransportationTripper ServiceUnfair CompetitionRegulatory InterpretationAgency DiscretionStatutory ConstructionPublic Transportation
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reices-Colon v. Astrue

Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. The action seeks to review the Commissioner's final determination under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Cynthia Reices-Colon, the plaintiff, applied for disability and supplemental security income in 2007 due to various ailments. Her applications were denied, and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Wallace Tannenbaum found her not disabled, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council in 2011. District Judge David G. Larimer reviewed the ALJ's decision, applying a five-step sequential evaluation process. The court concluded that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and that the finding of no total disability was supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding her residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the Commissioner's decision was affirmed.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilResidual Functional CapacityMedical EvidenceConsultative ExaminationMental HealthPhysical ImpairmentsCredibility Assessment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Collins v. Dukes Plumbing & Sewer Service, Inc.

This case involves appeals from three Workers’ Compensation Board decisions concerning the application of 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (w) and 27 (2). The amendments mandated lump-sum payments into the aggregate trust fund (ATF) for permanent partial disability (PPD) awards made on or after July 1, 2007, irrespective of the injury date. Employers' private insurance carriers challenged this requirement, asserting improper retroactive application, difficulties in calculating present values for uncapped awards, and constitutional violations. The Board affirmed its prior decisions, holding that the statutory language was unambiguous and rejected all constitutional challenges.

Workers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationPermanent Partial DisabilityAggregate Trust FundConstitutional LawTakings ClauseContract ClauseEqual ProtectionPrivate Insurance Carriers
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2008

Maricle v. Hinds

Claimant, a tool and model maker, sustained a work-related back injury in 2001 and received workers’ compensation benefits. In 2007, he experienced a recurrence of back pain, which the self-insured employer and its third-party administrator contended was unrelated to the prior injury. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the 2007 pain was an exacerbation of the 2001 injury, not a new one, and awarded benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the Board applied an incorrect standard of review and that an independent medical examination found the pain was due to unrelated degenerative disc disease. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's resolution of conflicting medical testimony in the claimant's favor.

Workers’ Compensation BenefitsBack Injury RecurrenceAggravation of InjuryMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial Evidence ReviewIndependent Medical ExaminationDegenerative Disc DiseaseAppellate AffirmationEmployer AppealTreating Physician Testimony
References
6
Case No. SAC 0316687
Regular
May 20, 2008

STEVE OLSON vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Labor Code section 4663(e), effective January 1, 2007, applies retroactively to a 2002 injury regarding apportionment of permanent disability for heart trouble. The Board rescinded its prior decision and the trial judge's decision, returning the case to the trial level to await a Court of Appeal ruling on this identical issue in the *Alexander* case. The outcome will depend on whether the court finds section 4663(e) retroactively applicable to pre-2007 injuries.

Labor Code section 4663section 4663(e)heart trouble presumptionapportionmentcumulative industrial injurycorrectional lieutenantpermanent disabilityreconsiderationrescindedretroactive application
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2013

Matter of Hillman v. Kohl's New York D.C.

Claimant had an established workers' compensation claim for a neck and shoulder injury from 2007, receiving temporary total disability benefits since 2008. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) continued these benefits in November 2012 and May 2013, with the latter decision allowing payment suspension if the claimant failed to provide current medical evidence. The employer appealed both WCLJ decisions, but the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. This court found that the Board abused its discretion by failing to consider issues properly raised by the employer regarding the May 2013 decision, which the Board had deemed 'moot' based on its refusal to consider similar arguments for the November 2012 decision. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings to allow for a proper review of the employer's arguments.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityMedical EvidenceBoard ReviewAppellate DivisionRemittalScope of ReviewAbuse of DiscretionFact-Finding RolePreserved Issue
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 23,051 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