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
May 24, 1993

Girardin v. Town of Hempstead

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 24, 1993. This order granted the defendants' motion to amend their answers to include the affirmative defense of res judicata and subsequently dismissed the complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting leave to amend. The appellate court noted that the defense of res judicata was not available at the time of joinder of issue, as Workers’ Compensation determinations were still pending. The delay in filing the motion to amend after these determinations was not considered excessive. The plaintiffs' claim of prejudice due to the delay was rejected, as they had the opportunity to appeal the Workers’ Compensation determinations but chose not to.

Personal InjuriesRes JudicataCPLR 3025(b)Leave to AmendAffirmative DefenseDismissal of ComplaintAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionPrejudiceSupreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 1978

In re Mycuta A.

This case involves a juvenile respondent who admitted to acts constituting assault in the third degree. A dispositional hearing was held in Bronx County Family Court to determine the applicability of amendments to Family Court Act Section 756, which became effective on September 1, 1978. The court addressed two primary legal questions: first, whether the revised one-year maximum initial placement for misdemeanor acts applied, and second, whether the provisions for direct placement into a secure facility by the Family Court were applicable. The court ruled that both amended provisions applied to the respondent, as the adjudication occurred after the amendment's effective date. Consequently, the respondent was placed with the Division for Youth for one year, with the Division authorized to place her directly into a secure facility if deemed appropriate.

Juvenile DelinquencyFamily Court ActPlacementSecure FacilityMisdemeanorEx Post FactoStatutory InterpretationDivision for YouthBronx County Family CourtDispositional Hearing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Proulx v. Burnett Process

This case involves appeals from four decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning the application of amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (w) and 27 (2). The core issue is whether the mandatory deposit of Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) awards into the aggregate trust fund (ATF) under amended § 27 (2) applies retroactively to injuries sustained before the amendment's effective date of March 13, 2007, when the PPD awards themselves were made after July 1, 2007. The carriers argued against retroactive application and claimed that mandating lump-sum payments for uncapped PPD awards was speculative and violated equal protection rights. The Board, and subsequently the Appellate Division, affirmed the decisions, holding that the relevant date for applying the amendment to § 27 (2) is the date of the award, not the date of the accident, and that the calculations are not speculative as present value is legislatively mandated.

Workers' Compensation LawAggregate Trust FundPermanent Partial DisabilityStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationEqual ProtectionLump-Sum PaymentsAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPresent Value
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1992

Tushaj v. Elm Management Ass'n

The case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, dated July 10, 1992. Defendant Elm Management Association, Inc. sought to amend its answer to include a workers’ compensation affirmative defense and for summary judgment on that defense, but the initial motion was denied. The appellate court modified the order, granting Elm Management Association, Inc. leave to amend its answer to assert the defense, while affirming the remainder of the lower court's decision. Evidence from the plaintiff's deposition suggested Elm Management Association, Inc. exerted control over the plaintiff, raising a factual question about a potential special employment relationship and applicability of workers' compensation. The court emphasized that leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted unless there is evidence of prejudice or unfair surprise.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeAffirmative DefenseAmendment of PleadingsSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureEmployment RelationshipControl TestPrejudiceThird-Party Defendant
References
3
Case No. ADJ2524386 (LAO 0803654) ADJ2571077 (LAO 0803655)
Regular
Oct 02, 2020

RAUL MARINO vs. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, BROADSPIRE

This case concerns a minor amendment to an already approved Compromise and Release agreement between Raul Marino and Coca-Cola Enterprises. The defendant sought to increase the net payment to the applicant by $47.14 and correct the date of injury for one of the cases. The applicant agreed to these changes, and the Board found them to be in the applicant's best interest. Consequently, the Board amended its previous decision to incorporate these agreed-upon modifications.

Compromise and ReleaseAmendmentNet Amount PayableDate of InjuryReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSelf-InsuredApplicantDefendantOpinion and Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ10030614
Regular
Jun 30, 2016

ARNULFO TORRES vs. STARR STAFFING, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior order. Defendants sought to correct a stipulated date of injury, April 15, 2015, which was after the applicant's last day of employment on January 26, 2015. The applicant later filed an amended application, changing the claim to a cumulative injury ending on January 26, 2015, potentially rendering the specific date of injury irrelevant. The Board amended the original order to defer the determination of the specific date of injury, affirming all other findings.

StipulationDate of InjuryPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJDeferred IssueCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryApplication for AdjudicationLast Date of Employment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lusardi v. Lusardi

This appeal concerns the applicability of amendments to Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (4) and § 54 (6) to policies issued before the amendments' effective date. These amendments excluded workers’ compensation coverage for sole shareholder and executive officer employees unless affirmatively elected. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially found the amendments applicable since the accident occurred after the effective date, but later reconsidered, concluding they do not apply to pre-existing policies. The court affirmed the Board's decision, applying prospective application to the amendments, as they restricted existing rights and would not alter current insurance contracts. The decision to affirm the award to the claimant was deemed rational.

Workers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationProspective ApplicationLegislative AmendmentsInsurance PolicyCorporate EmployerSole ShareholderExecutive OfficerCoverage ElectionBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 1998

Browning v. County Fence Co.

The Supreme Court of Westchester County erred in applying Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as amended, to a third-party action. The appellate court determined that the amendment should be applied prospectively to actions commenced by employees after its effective date. Although the third-party action itself was commenced after the amendment's effective date, the main action by the employee predated it. Consequently, the amendment was deemed inapplicable, leading to the reversal of the order that had dismissed the third-party complaint. The third-party complaint was therefore reinstated.

Personal Injury DamagesThird-Party ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Statutory AmendmentsProspective ApplicationAppellate ProcedureMotion to DismissIndemnificationNew York Supreme CourtCase Precedent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1989

Claim of Kass v. Club Mart of America, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board directed the Special Disability Fund to pay benefits for a claimant's back and knee injury, acknowledging preexisting hypertension and diabetes. The employer's carrier sought reimbursement from the Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). A legislative amendment in July 1987 eliminated the employer's knowledge requirement for reimbursement from the Fund, and the Board subsequently resolved that this amendment applied to all open cases where the knowledge issue was not finally determined by that date. The Fund appealed the Board's decision, contending the amendment should not apply retroactively to claims filed before its effective date, thus requiring proof of employer knowledge. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing established law that amended statutes appropriately apply to pending proceedings without constitutional issues, given the employer knowledge issue was still unresolved.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d)Special Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Physical ImpairmentEmployer Knowledge RequirementStatutory Amendment ApplicationRetroactive Application of LawPending ProceedingsAppellate ReviewPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,411 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