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
Jan 31, 2000

Claim of Rose v. International Paper Co.

The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from January 31, 2000. The Board had refused to review a determination that denied the carrier's request for an adjournment after scheduled lay witnesses and doctors failed to appear at a March 1999 hearing. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) had denied the adjournment, established the claim, and made awards. The employer contended the WCLJ erred in refusing the adjournment, arguing that Board rule 12 NYCRR 300.10 (b) impermissibly restricted their right to appeal under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. The court found the WCLJ's denial of the adjournment was not an abuse of discretion, citing the employer's lack of preparedness and the reasonableness of the rule in speeding claim resolution. The decision of the Board was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawAdjournment DenialBoard ReviewAppellate ProcedureWitness TestimonyMedical EvidenceWCLJ DiscretionDue ProcessRegulatory InterpretationSubpoena
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Metzger v. Champion International Corp.

Claimant, a pulp tester, sustained a right hip and thigh injury at work in 1994. After initial hearings and the establishment of the claim, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) directed parties to file medical opinions on permanency. The carrier repeatedly failed to present its own expert or obtain a consultant's opinion despite multiple opportunities. The WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the carrier's requests for adjournments, awarding the claimant a 66 2/3% schedule loss of use. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the carrier's request, citing its lack of preparedness.

Workers' CompensationAdjournment DenialMedical OpinionPermanencySchedule Loss of UseCarrier DelayAppellate ReviewDiscretionary RulingEvidence SubmissionProcedural Due Process
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ashley EE.

Petitioner initiated a proceeding to declare respondent a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) due to excessive school absences, tardiness, insubordination, and a physical altercation. Initially, the case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) for six months, subject to conditions like regular school attendance and therapy. When respondent allegedly violated these conditions, petitioner moved to restore the PINS petition. The Family Court subsequently found respondent to be a PINS and placed her in the custody of the Ulster County Commissioner of Social Services for 12 months. Respondent appealed, challenging the Family Court's jurisdiction and the adjournment of the dispositional hearing. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the Family Court maintained jurisdiction and that the adjournment, consented to by respondent's counsel, did not warrant dismissal.

PINS ProceedingTruancyInsubordinationSchool SuspensionAdjournment in Contemplation of DismissalFamily Court JurisdictionDispositional HearingAppellate ReviewJuvenile Delinquency
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2003

Beesmer v. Village of DeRuyter Fire Department

In 1975, the decedent, a volunteer firefighter, suffered a heart attack and continuously received workers' compensation benefits until his death in 2002. His claimant applied for death benefits, alleging a causal link between the 1975 injury and his death. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded benefits after denying the employer's request for a second adjournment to depose treating physicians, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The court found substantial evidence supporting the causal relationship between the heart attack and death, noting that a work-related injury need not be the sole cause of death. Additionally, the court upheld the WCLJ's denial of the adjournment, as the employer failed to provide a sufficient excuse for not scheduling depositions or serving subpoenas during the initial adjournment period.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsCausal RelationshipHeart AttackCongestive Heart FailureAdjournment DenialTreating Physician DepositionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical OpinionVolunteer Firefighter
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Denise AA. v. David AA.

This case is an appeal from a Family Court order granting the petitioner primary physical custody of two children, Rebecca and Chelsea, while maintaining joint legal custody. The respondent, appealing pro se after an adjournment request was denied, argued that the Family Court abused its discretion in the custody award and in denying the adjournment. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the adjournment given the respondent's ample time to secure counsel. The court also found the custody award to the petitioner to be in the children's best interest, despite concerns about the petitioner's judgment regarding her older daughter's sexual activity and cohabitation plans. The decision emphasized the deference given to Family Court's factual findings and the desirability of keeping siblings together.

child custodyphysical custodyjoint legal custodyvisitation rightsFamily Court Act Article 6pro se representationadjournment denialbest interest of the childparental judgmentappellate review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonard v. Kirby

A 54-year-old disabled petitioner, injured on the job, applied for home relief but was denied by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services due to incomplete documentation. She missed the deadline and an appointment due to illness and an inability to obtain a mortgage letter without funds. Her request for an adjournment was denied, and her case was closed. The court found the agency's refusal to grant the adjournment arbitrary and capricious, annulling the determination and remanding the matter for a decision on the merits of her application.

home reliefadjournment denialarbitrary and capriciouspublic assistancefair hearingdisability benefitsworkers' compensationSuffolk Countylocal agency determinationremand
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1994

Claim of Schulman v. Lederle Laboratories

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision affirming a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s ruling that the claimant sustained a compensable injury. The claimant, a member of a hazardous waste emergency response team, contended that exposure to toxic chemicals in August 1991 caused him to suffer from myelodysplastic syndrome. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed the Board's decision, arguing that the matter should have been adjourned to further develop the record on causal relationship. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the adjournment, as substantial medical evidence of causal relationship was already in the record.

Myelodysplastic SyndromeToxic Chemical ExposureCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardDenial of AdjournmentAbuse of DiscretionMedical ReportsHazardous WasteOccupational Disease
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braswell v. Braswell

The case concerns an appeal by a father from a Family Court order that modified his visitation schedule with his son. The mother had initiated the modification proceeding, citing the child's entry into kindergarten and the disruptive nature of the existing schedule, as well as the child's diagnosis of acute stress disorder linked to visits with his father. The Family Court denied the father's adjournment request and, in his absence, reduced his visitation to three visits annually. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the denial of the adjournment or the modification of the visitation, as a sufficient change in circumstances and the child's best interests were demonstrated.

Child visitationVisitation modificationFamily Court ActAppellate reviewAdjournment denialChild custodyBest interests of childAcute stress disorderParenting timeChild welfare
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Doerle v. JC Penney Co.

This case involves an appeal stemming from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The claimant sought benefits for a work-related back injury. The employer contested the claim, alleging a personal injury, and requested an opportunity to present two witnesses. However, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the employer's request for an adjournment due to their failure to produce witnesses and awarded benefits to the claimant. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's determination. The appellate court further affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer was at fault and lacked excuse for not presenting their witnesses, thus upholding the denial of an adjournment.

Workers' CompensationAppealAdjournmentWitness TestimonyEvidenceEmployer FaultCompensable InjuryBack InjuryWorkers' Compensation BoardDenial of Adjournment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1993

In re Arbitration between Bevona & Superior Maintenance Co.

Petitioner, a union representing employee Orlando Moneado, sought to confirm an arbitration award directing Superior Maintenance Company to reinstate Moneado and pay back wages. Superior moved to vacate the award, citing the arbitrator's misconduct in denying an adjournment request and issuing a default award after evidence had been presented. The Supreme Court initially confirmed the award, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the lower court erred in denying Superior's motion to renew and that the arbitrator's refusal to grant an adjournment constituted misconduct. Consequently, the appellate court granted Superior's motion to vacate the arbitration award.

Arbitration AppealVacation of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardArbitrator MisconductDenial of AdjournmentDefault AwardCPLR 7511CPLR 7510Motion to RenewAppellate Procedure
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 71 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