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

Realbuto v. Howe

Lori Boyar Realbuto, a former New York State employee with a hearing impairment and chronic fatigue immunity deficiency syndrome, sued New York State and several officials, alleging discrimination based on her handicaps. She claimed violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the due process and equal protection clauses, after her noncompetitive "55-b" position was eliminated during a reduction-in-force, preventing her from "bumping" a more junior competitive class employee. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Realbuto failed to demonstrate discrimination "solely" on the basis of her handicap, as her inability to bump resulted from her classification as a noncompetitive employee who did not take a competitive examination, rather than her disability itself. The Court also dismissed her equal protection and due process claims, finding the civil service classification rational and no protected interest in the claimed benefits.

Disability DiscriminationRehabilitation Act of 1973Americans With Disabilities ActCivil Service LawNoncompetitive Class EmploymentBumping RightsSummary JudgmentEqual Protection ClauseDue Process ClauseHandicapped Individuals Employment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.

This case addresses post-trial motions concerning the liability of Atlantic Container Lines (ACL), a stevedore, to Bucyrus-Erie Co., a truck-crane manufacturer and third-party plaintiff. The central issue is whether ACL enjoys immunity from contribution or indemnity claims under 33 U.S.C. § 905, following a jury finding that both Bucyrus-Erie's negligent manufacturing and ACL's incompetent employee (Antonio Fuet) equally contributed to the injury of Adolfo Millan and death of Joseph Zapico, ACL's employees. ACL argued it was immune as a compensation-paying stevedore and lacked an indemnity agreement. The court found that Bucyrus-Erie's claim was not 'on account of' the employee injury, but rather for partial indemnification based on ACL's implied warranty of workmanlike performance or a quasi-contractual theory. The court concluded that extending third-party benefits or apportioning damages based on fault would not violate statutory immunity and would be equitable, especially given manufacturers' lack of control over stevedoring functions and increasing strict liability. Therefore, ACL's motion for judgment in its favor was denied, Bucyrus-Erie Co.'s motion to amend its pleadings was granted, and Celia Zapico's motion to strike the jury's finding of contributory negligence was denied.

Stevedore LiabilityMaritime IndemnityLongshoremen's ActThird-Party ClaimsProduct Manufacturer NegligenceEmployee IncompetenceContribution LawWarranty of Workmanlike PerformanceFederal Civil ProcedurePost-Trial Litigation
References
14
Case No. 535283
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Racheal Brown

Claimant Racheal L. Brown, a phlebotomist, appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. Initially, her claim for right wrist tendonitis was established as an occupational disease, but right carpal tunnel syndrome was disallowed. Claimant later sought to amend her claim to include consequential right carpal tunnel syndrome after surgery, which the WCLJ initially allowed but the Board subsequently disallowed. The Board also deemed her rebuttal application deficient. This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in rejecting the rebuttal for incompleteness and concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's denial of the consequential carpal tunnel syndrome claim, as claimant failed to establish a causal connection by competent medical evidence. The court also affirmed the Board's modification of the degree of disability to mild, based on established conditions.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRight Wrist TendonitisCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionsDisability RateMedical EvidenceAdministrative Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. N.Y. State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiff Brewster Marshall, a high school student with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, sued the Commissioner of Education of New York and athletic associations for denying him extended athletic eligibility to play basketball. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (SAC) or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot due to his imminent graduation and the end of the basketball season, and that she had absolute judicial and legislative immunity. The Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief and the ADA claim for monetary damages, finding them moot or conceded by the Plaintiff. However, the Court denied the Commissioner's request for dismissal based on absolute judicial and legislative immunity and also denied the dismissal of the Section 504 monetary claim, stating that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference.

Disability discriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation Act Section 504Athletic eligibilityMootness doctrineAbsolute immunity (judicial)Absolute immunity (legislative)Deliberate indifferenceSovereign immunityDeclaratory relief
References
127
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Administration

Plaintiff Robert Pietri, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit against the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) and individual defendants, alleging claims of failure to accommodate, constitutional rights violations, racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VII. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The Court granted the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's ADA claims against all defendants due to sovereign immunity, § 1983 claims against OCA and Judicial Hearing Officer Adlerberg (due to sovereign and absolute immunity, respectively), and Title VII claims against individual defendants. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss § 1983 claims against defendants Imperatrice and Pfau in their individual capacities and Title VII claims against OCA. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint to address pleading deficiencies, particularly regarding timely filing of Title VII claims and causation for retaliation and hostile work environment.

Employment DiscriminationADACivil Rights Act of 1964Section 1983 ClaimsSovereign ImmunityJudicial ImmunityQualified ImmunityMotion to DismissRetaliationHostile Work Environment
References
139
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 1993

Hayles v. Patmast Acquiring Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order that granted Creative Bakers, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. Concurrently, the court denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for discovery. The complaint against the employer, Creative Bakers, Inc., was properly dismissed as the plaintiff's exclusive remedy falls under the Workers' Compensation Law. Furthermore, the plaintiff's cross-motion for discovery regarding the inter-relationship between defendants Patmast Acquiring Corp. and Creative Bakers, Inc. was denied. The court determined that the information sought had no bearing on whether the plaintiff could maintain a separate cause of action for personal injuries against the employer.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyPersonal InjuryDiscovery MotionEmployer LiabilityDismissal of ComplaintAffirmed DecisionNew York LawCPLR 3212(f)
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2004

Laratro v. City of New York

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning a tort claim against a municipality for injuries sustained due to a failure to provide emergency assistance, a governmental function typically protected by immunity. The dissent argues that the plaintiff failed to establish a 'special relationship' with the municipality, specifically the 'direct contact' element, as contact was made by a coworker rather than the injured party. The opinion emphasizes that expanding the definition of direct contact to include non-family or non-contractual third parties should be a legislative or higher court decision due to the lack of precedent and potential for significantly increased municipal liability. The majority, however, reversed the lower court's decision, denying the municipal defendants' motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint.

Special relationship doctrineMunicipal immunityDirect contactEmergency services liabilityTort lawSummary judgmentNew York appellate courtGovernmental functionCoworker contact
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Scuderi v. Mazzco Enterprises

Claimant, a union carpenter, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2010 for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which was deemed an occupational disease with a disability onset of June 25, 2010. The workers’ compensation carrier for his last employer, Mazzco Enterprises, sought to apportion liability among claimant’s previous employers, including JD Consulting LLC. The Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately determined the disease was contracted on August 14, 1998, and assigned 45% of the liability to JD Consulting and its carrier. JD Consulting and its carrier appealed, contending that the Board's selection of the contraction date lacked substantial evidentiary support, as the claimant could not recall the onset of symptoms and his treating physician provided no definitive opinion on the matter. The Appellate Division concurred, reversing the Board's decision and remitting the case for further proceedings due to the insufficient evidence supporting the chosen date of contraction.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeApportionment of LiabilityEmployer LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalNew York Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2006

Claim of McKenzie v. UJA-FED

Claimant, employed in data entry, developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and sought workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially dismissed the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the condition to be an occupational disease causally related to employment, based on agreement between the treating physician and an independent medical examiner, and the carrier's failure to request cross-examination. The carrier appealed, arguing the Board erred in its finding regarding cross-examination and mischaracterized medical evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the carrier waived its right to cross-examination by not making a timely request and finding no basis to disturb the Board's assessment of the medical evidence.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeWorkers' CompensationMedical EvidenceCross-Examination WaiverAppellate ReviewCausationEmployment-Related InjuryMedical Expert TestimonyBoard Decision Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Menin v. Tully

The petitioner, an estate planner and life insurance agent, sought to review a State Tax Commission determination sustaining a deficiency assessment for unincorporated business taxes for various years between 1964 and 1974. The respondent concluded that the petitioner was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Petitioner worked under an agent’s career contract for New England Life Insurance Company and its general agent, but also sold insurance for other principals and operated with considerable independence, including maintaining his own office and incurring substantial business expenses. The court affirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the petitioner was an independent contractor and therefore subject to the unincorporated business tax.

unincorporated business taxindependent contractorinsurance agentState Tax Commissiontax assessmentCPLR Article 78employer controlbusiness expensestax deficiencyappellate review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,195 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