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

Matter of Kent v. Cuomo

Petitioners, state employees typically ineligible for overtime, challenged a determination by the State Budget Director regarding overtime compensation following Hurricane Sandy. The Budget Director's bulletin authorized overtime for hours worked beyond 47.5 per week, rather than the 40-hour threshold sought by petitioners. Petitioners argued that the Budget Director was statutorily required to compensate for all hours over 40. The Supreme Court partially dismissed their application, leading to this appeal. The appellate court deferred to the Budget Director's interpretation of Civil Service Law § 134 (6), finding the 47.5-hour threshold was not irrational or unreasonable given the agency's expertise and consistent past application. The court also held that employer respondents did not act irrationally in not requesting compensation below the 47.5-hour threshold, as this authority rests solely with the Budget Director.

Overtime CompensationExtreme EmergencyHurricane SandyState EmployeesCivil Service LawStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DiscretionNormal Workweek47.5-Hour ThresholdCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. ADJ8083715
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

KAREN WHISNANT vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether apportionment applies when calculating the subsequent permanent disability threshold for SIBTF benefits. Applicant Karen Whisnant's eligibility for SIBTF benefits hinged on this interpretation, with the WCJ initially finding her eligible based on a 42% disability without apportionment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's April 5, 2022 Findings of Fact but clarified that apportionment is not considered when determining the 5% or 35% SIBTF eligibility threshold, citing precedents like Bookout v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. Consequently, the Board's decision ensures that the applicant's subsequent injury rating of 42% (unapportioned) qualifies her for benefits.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFpermanent disabilityapportionmentLabor Code section 4751eligibility thresholdWCJreconsiderationFindings of FactBookout
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1977

McCallin v. Walsh

The dissenting opinion, penned by Murphy, P. J., challenges specific provisions of Local Law No. 5, particularly those concerning smoke venting and stairway pressurization, deeming them unconstitutional and unenforceable due to economic unfeasibility and lack of clear performance standards. The dissent clarifies that Local Law No. 5 does not mandate sprinklerization, interpreting the word "exempt" in its plain meaning. While agreeing with the majority on the Fire Commissioner's authority to create fire warden positions and denying class action status in the McCallin suit, the opinion criticizes Local Law No. 5 as hastily conceived and carelessly formulated, advocating for redrafted provisions to ensure effective fire safety programs.

Local Law No. 5Fire Safety RegulationsBuilding Code ChallengesUnconstitutional ProvisionsStairway PressurizationSmoke VentingStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentClass Action LitigationFire Warden Appointment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No. 5 v. Hudson Valley District Council Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Joint Benefit Funds

This case concerns the authority of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen to appoint trustees to employee benefit (ERISA) funds, displacing previously appointed trustees from superseded local union entities. The International Union merged local entities into a new Local 5 and appointed Emil Parietti, Jr. as its President, granting him authority to appoint trustees. A previously appointed trustee declined to be replaced, causing a dispute where the new Local 5 has fewer than its authorized number of trustees on the ERISA funds. The court found that the International Union has the ultimate authority in such matters and that the continued service of trustees against the appointing authority's wishes causes irreparable injury. While the plaintiffs' specific request for an injunction was deemed too broad, the court determined that the requirements for a preliminary injunction placing Mr. Parietti's designee were met. The court directed the parties to seek settlement and ordered the defendants to show cause why such a preliminary injunction should not be entered.

International Trade UnionsLabor Management Relations ActERISAEmployee Benefit FundsTrustee AppointmentUnion Internal StructureLocal Union MergerPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. ADJ3207910 (SJO 0257814)
Regular
Jul 20, 2010

BARTON LEWIS vs. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND (SIBTF)

This case concerns the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBF) liability for applicant Barton Lewis, who suffered multiple industrial injuries. The SIBF contested the applicant's eligibility, arguing he did not meet the statutory thresholds for benefits. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision, finding the applicant met the 35% permanent disability threshold under Labor Code section 4751 based on the February 5, 2003 injury alone, without apportionment. This decision allows the applicant to receive benefits from the SIBF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFdistrict attorney investigatorindustrial injurylow backbrainheartright armcumulative injury
References
1
Case No. AD J8835024 AD J8996815
Regular
Jun 14, 2016

TRACIE KEILLOR vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a prior award, and found that the applicant, a deputy sheriff, did not sustain industrial injury from a stroke. While Labor Code section 3212.5 creates a presumption of industrial causation for heart trouble in peace officers, the applicant failed to establish, based on a qualified medical evaluator's opinions, that her stroke was caused by heart trouble or that she suffered from any heart trouble. The expert consistently found no evidence of heart trouble contributing to the stroke and opined that an intracranial thrombosis was the probable cause. Therefore, the presumption under section 3212.5 was not applicable as the applicant did not meet the threshold requirement of showing heart trouble.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffStrokeHeart PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.5Occupational CausationMedical ProbabilityPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorCardiologistIn Situ Thrombosis
References
6
Case No. ADJ3746264 (LBO 0362006)
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

TERESA LICEA vs. PELICAN PRODUCTS, CRUM FORSTER ORANGE

The applicant, Teresa Licea, was awarded vocational rehabilitation benefits from February 2, 2006, to September 5, 2006, with the defendant estopped from denying her qualified injured worker status. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the estoppel issue was not properly raised or litigated. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the matter to the trial level. This action was taken due to the significant legal issue surrounding the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5 and its effect on vocational rehabilitation benefits awarded after January 1, 2009. The Board desires to address this threshold jurisdictional question and allow the parties and judge to consider relevant en banc decisions.

Vocational rehabilitationEstoppelQualified injured workerSupplemental Findings and AwardPetition for reconsiderationReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 139.5RepealEn banc decisionRescinded
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,650 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