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. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sanad

The People moved to reargue the court's September 5, 2014 decision that granted the defendant's motion for a Huntley hearing. The defendant, a police officer, was questioned by an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) regarding a prior arrest report, recanting an earlier statement where she claimed to have witnessed an assault. The People argued the defendant was not in custody or interrogated, thus not entitled to a Huntley hearing. The defendant countered that her statement was compelled, potentially under threat of job forfeiture, making it involuntary. The court granted the reargument motion but ultimately adhered to its prior decision, citing People v Weaver which mandates a Huntley hearing whenever a defendant claims a statement was involuntary. The court will determine the voluntariness of the statement by reviewing the totality of the circumstances at the hearing.

Criminal LawMotion PracticeReargumentHuntley HearingVoluntary StatementPolice OfficerSelf-IncriminationMiranda RightsGarrity RightsPublic Employment
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2002

In re the Claim of Kearse

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which upheld its prior ruling that the claimant's request for a hearing was untimely. The claimant had been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct and charged with an overpayment, but failed to request a review hearing for several months, mistakenly believing her workers' compensation case was related. The Board, upon reconsideration, adhered to its finding that the request was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that a claimant typically has 30 days to request a hearing unless there is a valid excuse. The court also declined to consider the claimant's belated assertions of post-traumatic stress disorder as a justification for the delay.

Unemployment BenefitsUntimely RequestMisconduct DischargeOverpaymentWorkers' CompensationPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAppellate ReviewHearing TimelinessAdministrative DecisionNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Case No. ADJ2896668 (OAK 0224622)
Regular
Jan 31, 2013

MONICA GARRETSON MILLER vs. JACKSON CREEK DENTAL GROUP, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, the defendant sought to remove the case from an expedited hearing, arguing certain issues were improperly included. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal as moot because the hearing had been taken off calendar. However, the Board returned the case to the trial level for a full hearing on all issues raised, including medical treatment adequacy, and ordered the claims examiner to appear and testify. The Board noted that while MPN issues and attorney fees were not expedited issues in 2012, statutory amendments now include them.

Petition for RemovalExpedited HearingTreatment DenialsMPNAttorney's FeesDeclaration of ReadinessClaims ExaminerUtilization ReviewMedical Provider NetworkLabor Code Section 5502(b)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Estrada v. Peepels Mechanical Corp.

The claimant's case was established for occupational disease resulting in bilateral hearing loss. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined the date of disablement and, after initial discharge, reinstated the State Insurance Fund (Fund) to produce an apportionment report between occupational disease and traumatic hearing loss. The Fund appealed this decision. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently found the Fund was not the proper party as it did not cover the employer on the date of disablement and reversed the order for the apportionment report. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier then appealed the Board's decision. The higher court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that a claim for traumatic hearing loss was never formally made or pending before the Board.

Occupational DiseaseBilateral Hearing LossApportionmentDate of DisablementWorkers' Compensation CarrierState Insurance FundBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewTraumatic Hearing LossWCLJ Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Wilson v. Wilson

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court judgment in New York County, dated October 29, 1975, which had dismissed a mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to regain custody of her 15-year-old child from the child's grandmother. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's decision, finding that while extraordinary circumstances existed (mother's voluntary surrender of custody, child's long-term residence with grandmother, mother's unwed status and living situation, and past emotional issues) that warranted applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the original hearing was inadequate. The court noted deficiencies such as the child not testifying, restricted inquiry into the mother's relationship with the child, and limited elaboration by a psychiatric worker. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a new hearing to properly determine the child's best interest, to be conducted before a different judge. Justice Kupferman concurred with the 'best interest' standard but dissented on the need to assign a different judge.

Child CustodyHabeas CorpusParental RightsBest Interest of the ChildExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewFamily LawRemandInadequate HearingJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2000

Claim of Lash v. General Motors Corp.

Claimant, an electrician, developed occupational hearing loss after working for General Motors Corporation and then American Axle. A claim was filed, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Board decision to apportion the award between the two employers. General Motors appealed, arguing American Axle failed to provide statutory notice for apportionment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that General Motors' actual knowledge of the claimant's preexisting hearing loss was equivalent to the required statutory notice under Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-ee, thereby permitting the apportionment of the claim.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationApportionmentActual KnowledgeStatutory NoticeLast Employer LiabilityNew York LawEmployer ResponsibilityPreexisting ConditionHearing Test
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,401 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