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
May 16, 2003

Claim of Isaacs v. Fleet Financial Services

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from May 16, 2003, which deemed her application for review untimely. The claimant's initial workers' compensation claim for a compensable back injury was established in 1999, with an average weekly wage set at $258. After the case was reopened in 2000 for further medical treatment and then closed in 2001, claimant sought an explanation for her average weekly wage calculation in March 2003, over three years after the initial decision became final. Her subsequent formal application for Board review of the 1999 administrative decision was denied as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the initial decision, as required by 12 NYCRR 313.3 [c] and Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. The court affirmed the Board’s discretionary decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the significant delay and lack of evidence demonstrating erroneous wage computation.

Workers' CompensationAppealTimeliness of ApplicationAdministrative ReviewAverage Weekly WageBoard DiscretionNew York Labor LawJudicial ReviewProcedural IssuesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2007

Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Brigid Hynes-Cherin

The Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) and its subsidiary, Regional Transit Service (RTS), moved to stay a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) decision dated July 30, 2007. The FTA had ordered RGRTA to cease providing school bus services on routes deemed "prohibited school bus operations" and barred RGRTA from receiving certain federal funds. RGRTA appealed this decision under the Administrative Procedure Act and sought a stay pending judicial review. The court, presided over by Judge Larimer, granted the stay in part, postponing the effective date of the FTA's order until October 1, 2007. This partial stay was granted primarily to prevent irreparable harm and potential chaos in student transportation due to the imminent start of the school year, despite the court not being convinced that RGRTA was likely to prevail on the merits or would suffer irreparable harm. The court emphasized the public interest in ensuring orderly student transportation. All other aspects of the plaintiff's motion for a stay were denied.

School Bus TransportationFederal Transit Administration (FTA)Stay OrderAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Judicial ReviewPublic InterestIrreparable HarmTripper ServicePublic TransportationCompetition Law
References
32
Case No. Claim 230
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1994

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

This case involves an appeal by Tribune New York Holdings, Inc. (NY Holdings) of an Administrator's denial of its motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in "Claim 230." Claim 230 originated from EEOC discrimination charges filed by employees of the New York Daily News, alleging ongoing racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stemming from a larger class action suit against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union and various publishers. NY Holdings argued that the claimants failed to prosecute diligently under Rule 41(b) and could not substantiate their discrimination claims for summary judgment under Rule 56(c). The District Court, granting deference to the Administrator's findings akin to an arbitrator's decision, affirmed the Administrator's denial of both motions. The court concluded that the Administrator did not abuse his discretion regarding diligent prosecution and that genuine issues of material fact regarding discrimination persisted, thereby precluding summary judgment, while cautioning against further delays.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Affirmative ActionConsent DecreeSummary JudgmentDismissal for Want of ProsecutionRule 41(b) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 56(c) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureEEOC
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Tijani

After beginning unemployment insurance benefits, the claimant's benefits were reduced due to concurrent receipt of workers' compensation benefits. An Administrative Law Judge sustained this reduction. The claimant's subsequent appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was dismissed as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the claimant's concession that the benefit reduction was proper and that he had no obvious reason to appeal the initial ALJ decision. The court also stated that any claims regarding later adjustments to unemployment benefits due to workers' compensation suspension were beyond the current record's scope and must be pursued before the agency.

Unemployment InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit AdjustmentUntimely AppealAdministrative DecisionsJudicial ReviewConcession of FactAppellate ProcedureScope of ReviewLabor Law
References
2
Case No. 02-CV-6146L
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2005

Orr v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Colleen Orr sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability insurance benefits and SSI. This case has a long procedural history, including two previous administrative hearings and a prior remand from the District Court due to errors by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). In the second administrative decision, the ALJ again failed to correct errors, including properly assessing plaintiff's credibility, obesity, alcoholism, and mental limitations. The District Court, presided over by Judge Larimer, found that the Commissioner failed twice to meet the burden of proving other jobs existed for the plaintiff. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, reversing the Commissioner's final decision and remanding the case solely for the calculation and payment of benefits, denying the Commissioner's request for further administrative proceedings.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeRemandVocational expertMedical expertMental impairmentPhysical impairmentObesityAlcoholism
References
24
Case No. 90-cv-279
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2013

Deno v. Colvin

Michael Deno sought judicial review under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Deno challenged the Administrative Law Judge's (hearing officer) decision, requesting a reversal of the finding that he is not disabled. The Commissioner, in turn, sought affirmation of the hearing officer's decision. This Court previously reversed and remanded Deno's claim in 2009, leading to further administrative proceedings where the hearing officer again denied the claim in 2010. Deno appealed this denial, arguing various errors by the hearing officer, including inadequate consideration of medical evidence, improper weight given to providers, unsupported credibility determinations, and erroneous reliance on vocational expert testimony. The Court, however, found the hearing officer's decision to be supported by substantial evidence, affirming the denial of disability benefits and dismissing Deno's complaint.

Social Security ActSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Disability Benefits AppealJudicial Review StandardALJ Decision ReviewTreating Physician Rule ApplicationResidual Functional Capacity AssessmentVocational Expert ReliabilityClaimant CredibilityChronic Back Pain
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morillo v. Apfel

Maria Morillo appealed the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her disability benefits application, citing various medical conditions. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had initially denied her claim, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. Morillo then sought judicial review, arguing the ALJ failed to appropriately weigh the opinions of her treating physicians, Dr. Jesus Hernandez and Dr. Claude Laniado, in assessing her physical and mental impairments. The District Court, finding that the ALJ did not correctly apply the "treating physician" rule by neglecting to develop the administrative record or provide sufficient reasons for discounting the medical opinions, denied Morillo's motion for reversal but granted her request for a remand. The case was sent back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleRemandResidual Functional CapacityMental ImpairmentPhysical ImpairmentSubstantial Evidence StandardMedical Opinions
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pabon v. Barnhart

Luz Pabon, a pro se plaintiff, sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner moved for a remand, which Pabon opposed, seeking a direct decision from the court. The District Court granted the Commissioner's remand motion, finding that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed legal errors. Specifically, the ALJ failed to properly assess Pabon's mental Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) according to relevant Social Security Administration regulations and failed to adequately develop the medical record concerning the opinion of Pabon's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Riccardi. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings to develop the record regarding Pabon's work-related mental abilities.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActRemand OrderAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Mental ImpairmentTreating Physician RuleMedical Record DevelopmentSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Major Depressive Disorder
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 24,675 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