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 04, 2005

Hanly v. Quaker Chemical Co.

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal stemming from a wrongful death and personal injury action. The plaintiff, representing a deceased sanitation worker, sued Quaker Chemical Company, Inc. and Zina Gamuzza. The worker died after being sprayed by hydrofluoric acid from a bursting container. The plaintiff alleged Quaker failed to adequately label the container and Gamuzza, an apartment building owner, was negligent in its disposal. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Quaker on the labeling claims, which the appellate court affirmed due to preemption by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The Supreme Court's denial of summary judgment for Gamuzza was reversed on cross-appeal, dismissing all claims against her due to insufficient admissible evidence.

wrongful deathpersonal injurysummary judgmentpreemptionFederal Hazardous Substances Actimproper labelingnegligencehydrofluoric acidsanitation workerevidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Laing

Claimant, a warehouse worker for a food distribution company, was terminated from his employment after reporting to work late. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his claim for unemployment insurance benefits, ruling that his termination was due to misconduct. The claimant appealed, arguing that his tardiness was due to overslept and that the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence. The court disagreed, noting the claimant's admission of lateness and prior warnings, concluding that such behavior constitutes misconduct and upholding the Board's decision.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductTardinessWarehouse WorkerBenefits DisqualificationAppeal Board DecisionJudicial ReviewEmployment TerminationPrior WarningsSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Focella

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to voluntarily leaving her employment without good cause. The claimant asserted she was terminated, while the employer stated she left voluntarily after performance issues. The Board found the claimant's testimony incredible, noting inconsistencies with her actions and admissions. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing that credibility determinations are within the Board's exclusive province and the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment benefitsvoluntary quitgood causedisqualificationcredibility determinationemployer-employee disputeappeal decisionadministrative lawjudicial reviewsubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1974

In re the Claim of Major

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that affirmed the Industrial Commissioner's determination disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits. The disqualification stemmed from the claimant's loss of employment due to misconduct, specifically striking a co-employee during an argument. Despite the claimant's denial, the board found substantial evidence, including admissions and eyewitness testimony, to support the finding that he struck a co-worker in violation of employer policy. The co-employee's later contradictory account was properly rejected. The court affirmed the decision, concluding that the board's finding of misconduct was amply justified.

Unemployment benefitsMisconductWorkplace altercationEmployer rules violationEyewitness testimonyCredibility determinationAppeal Board decisionIndustrial Commissioner rulingSubstantial evidenceAffirmed decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Endicott Johnson Corp.

The Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The stay is continued until the appellant has an opportunity to apply to the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, if so advised.

Appellate ProcedurePermission to AppealCourt of AppealsStay of ProceedingsJudicial Panel
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Rivera

The case involves an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits. The claimant voluntarily left employment by requesting to be laid off when informed one of three kitchen workers would be dismissed. The claimant's stated reason for leaving was a desire to return to Puerto Rico, with no other work-related justification. The Board's decision was based on substantial evidence, including the claimant's own admissions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing precedents where claimants who volunteered for layoff were similarly disqualified.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary SeparationGood CauseLayoff RequestDisqualification from BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAffirmed DecisionPer Curiam
References
2
Case No. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision

Testerman v. Zielinski

The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic LawAutomobile AccidentExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ovadia v. Office of Industrial Board of Appeals

The Court of Appeals remitted *Matter of Ovadia v Office of the Indus. Bd. of Appeals* (19 NY3d 138 [2012]) back to this Court. The determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, dated December 14, 2009, which had affirmed an order directing petitioners to pay claimants unpaid wages, was unanimously annulled. The matter has been remanded for further proceedings. These proceedings specifically involve determining whether Ovadia made an enforceable promise to pay workers for their continued work following Bruten’s disappearance and whether the workers relied on this promise by continuing to work at the construction site for six days.

AnnulmentRemandUnpaid wagesIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of Department of LaborWorkers' relianceEnforceable promiseCourt of AppealsAppellate reviewLabor Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2007

Lazier v. Strickland Avenue Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant Styles Steel Erecting & Steel Fabrications and a cross-appeal by the defendant third-party plaintiff 6085 Strickland Associates Corp. The appeals concern an action to recover damages for personal injuries, specifically focusing on motions to set aside a jury verdict regarding fault apportionment and to strike expert witness testimony. The Supreme Court's decision to grant the motion to set aside the verdict finding 6085 Strickland Associates Corp. 70% at fault was affirmed, as no evidence showed its authority to supervise the work. The court also affirmed the denial of Styles Steel's motion to strike expert testimony and to set aside the jury's finding of 30% fault against it, concluding there was a valid line of reasoning for the jury's verdict, including the finding of a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned, and appeals from earlier orders were dismissed as superseded by the final order.

Personal InjuryJury VerdictFault ApportionmentExpert WitnessCPLR 4404CPLR 3101Labor Law 200Workers' Compensation Law 11Grave InjuryAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1987

People v. Wilens

The defendant appealed a conviction for first-degree sodomy and incest from Dutchess County. The appeal concerned the admissibility of a social worker's testimony regarding prior consistent statements made by the five-year-old victim. The defendant argued that the social worker's testimony improperly bolstered the victim's repudiated Grand Jury testimony, which the defense implied was fabricated under the Assistant District Attorney's influence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the social worker's testimony was properly admitted to rehabilitate the victim's testimony against claims of recent fabrication.

sodomyincestchild victimcross-examinationprior consistent statementsrecent fabricationrehabilitation of witnessappellate reviewadmissibility of evidencewitness testimony
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 25,646 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