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

Claim of Seo v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

The claimant, a limousine driver for UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc., was injured in an automobile accident while driving home from work. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied benefits, ruling the injuries did not arise from employment. Eagle Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which initially reversed the WCLJ, deeming the claimant an 'outside worker' eligible for 'portal to portal' coverage. UTOG appealed this reversal, but the full Board rescinded the decision and referred it back. Upon reconsideration, the Board panel determined that Eagle lacked standing as it was not a party in interest under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and affirmed the WCLJ's denial of benefits. Eagle then appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the Board's decision, citing prior cases, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Automobile AccidentLimousine DriverWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStanding to AppealNo-Fault Insurance CarrierOutside WorkerPortal to Portal CoverageAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationRemittal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

In re the Claim of Culver

The claimant, a housekeeper at a residential apartment complex, was terminated after her supervisor received information that she was playing video games during working hours. Her initial application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied for misconduct, a determination upheld by an Administrative Law Judge. However, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this decision, ruling that the claimant was entitled to benefits. The employer appealed the Board's ruling. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the question of disqualifying misconduct is a factual one for the Board to resolve and that substantial evidence supported the Board's choice to credit the claimant's testimony over the employer's witnesses.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductCredibilityAdministrative LawAppealTerminationHousekeeperVideo GamesWorking HoursSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Quinones

The claimant was terminated from his employment as a baker due to misconduct, specifically threatening a co-worker. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, a decision they adhered to upon reconsideration. The claimant appealed this ruling. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing that threatening a co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct and finding the Board's determination to be supported by substantial evidence. The court also noted that resolving issues of credibility was within the Board's purview.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductThreatening Co-workerDisqualificationAppealCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionBakerEmployment Termination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Elkan-Moore

The case involves a claimant's appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled she was disqualified from receiving benefits due to voluntarily leaving her employment without good cause. The claimant, a museum director for five years, contended she resigned due to distress over allegations by a former Board of Trustees president and ongoing harassment from staff. However, the court found that issues with co-workers do not constitute good cause for leaving. An investigation had cleared the claimant of the allegations, and the Board was actively working to resolve the situation and retain her. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant left her job due to general dissatisfaction with work conditions.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary QuittingGood CauseJob DissatisfactionWorkplace HarassmentBoard of TrusteesEmployer-Employee RelationsAppellate ReviewBenefit DisqualificationClaimant Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fortunato v. Workers' Compensation Board

The petitioner appealed two rulings: a Supreme Court judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 application to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to renew his license, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. The Board had denied license renewal due to petitioner's failure to provide records, reapply, and demonstrate competency. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, ruling that the proceeding was time-barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations. Additionally, the court found that mandamus was not appropriate for a discretionary act and that the Board’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious.

License RenewalMandamusCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation BoardStatute of LimitationsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDiscretionary ActNonattorney Representative
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bartenders Unlimited, Inc.

Bartenders Unlimited, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found its workers were employees for unemployment insurance contributions under Labor Law article 18. This contradicted an earlier Industrial Board of Appeals ruling that the workers were independent contractors for Labor Law articles 6 and 19. Bartenders argued collateral estoppel, but the Board rejected it, a stance affirmed by the court. The court reasoned that the term "employment" is not identically defined across all Labor Law statutes, allowing different administrative bodies to reach distinct conclusions on the mixed issue of law and fact, even with the same evidentiary facts. Therefore, collateral estoppel did not prevent the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board from reaching a different conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceCollateral EstoppelIndependent ContractorsEmployeesLabor LawAdministrative LawAppealStatutory InterpretationMixed Question of Law and FactEvidentiary Facts
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Louchheim v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Petitioners appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which had denied their CPLR article 78 petition. The petition aimed to review a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton, dated October 20, 2005. The ZBA's determination had granted NL Housing, LLC, a variance for the enlargement of two structures that served as a labor camp for migrant workers, benefiting from a preexisting nonconforming use. The petitioners argued that this variance violated Southampton Code § 330-167 (B) (1) (a), also known as the 50% rule, which limits nonconforming use expansion to 50% of the floor area as measured from when the use first became nonconforming in 1957. The Appellate Court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, granted the petition, annulled the ZBA's determination, and denied the application for the variance, finding that the ZBA had incorrectly interpreted the zoning ordinance.

ZoningVarianceNonconforming UseMigrant HousingZoning Board of AppealsCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation50% RuleSuffolk County
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Palmer

The claimant, a resident supervisor at a homeless shelter, was discharged for allegedly violating a policy against excluding clients without approval. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially ruled in favor of the claimant, finding no disqualifying misconduct. After a rehearing ordered by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board due to an incomplete transcript, the ALJ again ruled for the claimant, a decision affirmed by the Board. The employer appealed, citing due process violations for denial of an adjournment and the incorporation of the initial hearing's transcript. The court rejected these claims, stating the employer waived its rights. Ultimately, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision that the claimant did not commit misconduct, as another employee was responsible for the client's exclusion, and thus affirmed the decision granting unemployment insurance benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployee MisconductDue ProcessAdministrative AppealWaiver of RightsCross-ExaminationHearing TranscriptCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceResident Supervisor
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schwartz v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed April 25, 2012, ruled that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to her established work-related stress claim. The second decision, filed May 2, 2012, denied her payment for intermittent lost time. The court affirmed both decisions, finding that the employer's independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions regarding cardiac conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's determination that the claimant's Friday absences were for convenience, not disability, was also upheld by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealsCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyEnlarged Left AtriumWork-Related StressAdjustment DisorderIntermittent Lost Time Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banton v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after the claimant was injured. Counsel sought a change of venue, citing a purported "Board Rule 10.01 (1) (c)" which the Workers’ Compensation Board found to be non-existent. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the request and assessed penalties against counsel under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) and (ii). On administrative appeal, the Board rescinded the penalty under § 114-a (3) (i) but increased the penalty under § 114-a (3) (ii) due to the appeal lacking reasonable basis. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that counsel had been previously warned about citing the inaccurate "Board Rule" and that clarification on venue application rules was available before the administrative appeal was filed.

Attorney MisconductVenue ChangeMonetary PenaltyWorkers' Compensation BoardAdministrative AppealSubstantial EvidenceLegal TreatiseProcedural MotionUnreasonable GroundsAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 30,283 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