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

Silberstein v. Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

This is an employment discrimination action filed by plaintiff Silberstein, formerly a senior vice president at The New Yorker, alleging demotion and termination due to a second pregnancy under Title VII and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Defendants, Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. and S.I. Néwhouse, Jr., moved to dismiss claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision. The court granted the motion, ruling that New York law’s stringent standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress were not met, especially given that statutory remedies for discrimination already exist without punitive damages. The negligent supervision claim was also dismissed due to the exclusivity of workers' compensation as a remedy for co-employee negligence and the lack of allegations regarding the employer's knowledge of the supervisor's propensities.

Employment DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent SupervisionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawsWorkers' Compensation LawMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07432 [166 AD3d 621]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2018

Matter of Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This case involves an appeal by Progressive Advanced Insurance Company (Progressive) against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) concerning an arbitration award. The dispute arose under Insurance Law § 5105 regarding a loss transfer claim, where NYCTA sought reimbursement from Progressive for workers' compensation benefits paid to its employee after a collision involving Progressive's insured. The central issue was whether a 20% no-fault offset applied to the workers' compensation wages, with the arbitrator ruling it did not, as a one-third offset had already been applied. Progressive's petition to vacate the award was denied by the Supreme Court, Queens County. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial, concluding that the arbitrator's determination was supported by a reasonable hypothesis and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Arbitration AwardLoss TransferInsurance LawWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNo-Fault OffsetAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and CapriciousReasonable Hypothesis
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. ADJ8010054
Regular
Feb 18, 2016

REBECCA GAGE vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior ruling that disability pension advances under Labor Code section 4850.4 constitute "compensation" subject to penalties for unreasonable delay. The Board held that these advances are distinct from workers' compensation benefits and are administered through a separate system, thus not triggering Labor Code section 5814 penalties. This decision aligns with prior rulings regarding similar special benefits for public safety officers under section 4850. Consequently, any unreasonable delay in paying these advances is not subject to a penalty.

Labor Code section 4850.4disability pension advancescompensationLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814penaltyremovalreconsiderationdeputy sheriffCounty of Sacramento
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Winters v. Advance Auto Parts

Claimant, injured while working for Advance Auto Parts and subsequently for LKQ Broadway Used Auto Parts, was terminated from LKQ for absenteeism. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s finding that his separation was due to his injury, ruling that he voluntarily removed himself from the labor market due to insufficient evidence of attachment. This court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board erred by requiring documentation for participation in a job-location service (One-Stop Career Centers) despite finding the claimant's testimony credible. The court emphasized that the Board failed to adequately explain its departure from prior precedent, which accepted credible testimony without documentation for such services. The matter is remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary WithdrawalAbsenteeism TerminationCredible TestimonyDocumentary Evidence RequirementOne-Stop Career CentersVocational RehabilitationBoard PrecedentArbitrary Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2010

Saunders v. Newmark Construction

This case involves a consolidated action for personal injuries where the plaintiff, a laborer supplied by United Staffing to Advanced Contracting Corp. (Advanced), sued various defendants, including Newmark Construction, Newmark & Company, Ethan Builders, LLC, Bay Street Associates, LLC (collectively the Newmark defendants), and Advanced, after sustaining injuries at a construction site in Jersey City, New Jersey. The Supreme Court initially granted Advanced's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it, ruling that the plaintiff was Advanced's special employee and therefore barred from suing Advanced due to workers' compensation benefits. The Newmark defendants had cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against them or, alternatively, for contractual indemnification from Advanced. The Supreme Court denied both branches of the Newmark defendants' cross-motion. On appeal and cross-appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the dismissal against Advanced and the denial of summary judgment for the Newmark defendants, finding insufficient evidence to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial EmployerContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewNew York LawNew Jersey LawConstruction Site InjuryLabor Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Poupard v. Mohonasen Central School District

The claimant, a librarian, sustained an employment-related injury. Following her injury, she received full salary for 27 weeks under a collective bargaining agreement, and then used 23 days of accumulated sick leave. The employer sought reimbursement for these advance payments. The referee and the Workers’ Compensation Board initially granted the full reimbursement. On appeal, the court modified the decision, holding that wages paid from accumulated sick leave, acquired through a collective bargaining agreement, are compulsory payments and thus not reimbursable under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (subd 4, par [a]). The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with this ruling, with costs awarded to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementSick LeaveCollective Bargaining AgreementAdvance PaymentsOccupational DisabilityStatutory LimitationsAppellate ReviewEmployment InjuryReferee Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board ruled that the claimant's cervical spine injury claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 because it was filed more than two years after the 2010 work-related accident, which initially caused back and leg injuries. Although the claimant argued that a carrier's payment for a 2010 CT scan constituted an advance payment of compensation, the court disagreed, noting the CT scan did not reveal neck abnormalities at the time and subsequent treatment focused on other injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the neck injury claim was untimely.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimNeck InjuryBack InjuryAdvance Payment of CompensationIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate DivisionNew YorkWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,915 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