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 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

Qavi v. Utog 2-Way Radio, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed April 24, 1997, which determined an employer-employee relationship existed between a claimant, a limousine driver, and Utog 2-Way Radio, Inc., a dispatched car service. The claimant was injured in an automobile collision and sought benefits. The Board’s finding of an employer-employee relationship, crucial for benefit eligibility, was upheld by the appellate court due to substantial evidence of control exerted by Utog over the claimant. This determination aligned with previous similar cases involving Utog and other limousine drivers. The court rejected Utog’s arguments regarding a lease agreement and insufficient notice of claim, affirming the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipLimousine DriverAutomobile CollisionSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewFactual IssueBoard DeterminationNotice of Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hilbrandt v. Village of Red Hook

The claimant, a volunteer emergency medical technician, was injured on August 26, 2005. Her initial workers’ compensation claim was established for left ankle/leg and consequential right shoulder injuries. In April 2008, she sought to amend her claim to include a consequential right hip injury. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) dismissed the right hip claim as time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, a decision upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Board. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that while Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law § 41 should have been applied, the claim for the right hip injury was time-barred under either statute as it was a direct injury from the 2005 accident and not claimed until April 2008.

Volunteer Firefighters' BenefitsStatute of LimitationsTime-barred ClaimConsequential InjuryDirect InjuryRight Hip InjuryEmergency Medical TechnicianDutchess CountyMedical EvidenceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. ADJ1210556 (AGO 0018589)
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

EDWIN MILLER vs. KEEBLER COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for removal and granted reconsideration of the WCJ's prior decisions regarding medical mileage and penalties. The Board found the WCJ failed to properly consider statutory factors in determining a "reasonable geographic area" for the applicant's medical treatment. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's decisions and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision addressing all outstanding issues, including the definition of a reasonable geographic area for treatment.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMedical MileageReasonable Geographic AreaLabor Code Section 4600Administrative Director Rule 9780(h)WCJBoltonRamirez
References
2
Case No. ADJ1003980 (SFO 0430815)
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ROBERT WYNNE vs. LUMEND, INC., HARFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY (KEMPER)

This case involved a clerical error in the caption of a previous Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board granted reconsideration to amend the April 4, 2011 decision nunc pro tunc. The amendment corrected the caption to include only the relevant case number, ADJ1003980 (SFO 0430815). No objections were received from the parties. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNunc Pro TuncReconsiderationAmend DecisionClerical ErrorCase CaptionAdministrative Law JudgePetition to ReassignTrial Level ProceedingsInsurer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ford v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a public relations director, filed for workers' compensation benefits in April 1994 due to work-related posttraumatic stress disorder, but later withdrew the claim in March 1997 due to a parallel federal civil rights action, leading to its closure without a decision on merits. In March 2003, claimant sought to reopen the case, which the Workers' Compensation Board denied in February 2004, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 123 as a bar. The Board subsequently denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review in July 2004, prompting the claimant's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no new evidence was presented for reconsideration and that the Board had properly determined the claim was truly closed and time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as over seven years had lapsed since the accident. Consequently, the appellate decision concluded that the Board's denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation AppealReconsideration DenialTime-Barred ClaimPosttraumatic Stress DisorderFederal Civil Rights ActionJurisdictionReopening ClaimMedical EvidenceDue ProcessWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ritter v. Astrue

Plaintiff Sherry Ritter sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny her application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) due to various physical and mental impairments since April 2003. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied her application in March 2008, and the Appeals Council upheld this decision in August 2009. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini recommended affirming the Commissioner's decision, concluding that the ALJ properly assessed medical evidence, found plaintiff's testimony less credible due to exaggeration, and correctly determined her residual functional capacity. District Judge Norman A. Mordue adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, finding no error in the Appeals Council's refusal to consider new evidence regarding a knee impairment that arose after the ALJ's decision. Consequently, the court entered judgment for the Commissioner and closed the case.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilResidual Functional CapacityMedical OpinionCredibility AssessmentLumbar RadiculopathyDepressionKnee Impairment
References
56
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

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

A limousine driver, who leased his vehicle from Augie’s Auto Repair, Inc. (Augie) and was dispatched by UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc. (UTOG), was assaulted and injured during a vehicle theft while working. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the driver a general employee of Augie and a special employee of UTOG, apportioning liability. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, finding the driver solely an employee of UTOG, discharging Augie based on an interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (4) regarding lessor/owner control. UTOG and its carrier appealed, arguing the Board misapplied the law concerning taxicab drivers, contending the control-related factors only apply when the owner operates the taxicab 40+ hours weekly. The Appellate Court reversed the Board's decision, stating the Board incorrectly applied the statute by requiring control factors for Augie when the 40-hour exception was not met, and remitted the matter for a decision consistent with the controlling statute.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployment RelationshipLimousine DriverTaxicab DriversStatutory InterpretationLessor-Lessee RelationshipGeneral EmploymentSpecial EmploymentAppellate ReviewRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2014

Matter of Haynes v. Catholic Charities

The claimant, a caseworker, sought workers' compensation benefits in October 2012 for a psychological injury sustained from a client assault. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the claim, which the Board affirmed. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7), asserting the injury resulted from lawful personnel decisions (warning letters). However, the Board determined that while an April 2012 disciplinary action was partially lawful, a July 2012 warning lacked good faith. Evidence, including testimony from a licensed clinical social worker, indicated the claimant had been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder prior to the warning letters, stemming from work-related stress and a client assault. Additionally, disparaging remarks made by the claimant's supervisors regarding her condition were credited. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence that the claim was not barred by WCL § 2 (7) and that the claimant's stress was greater than that of similarly situated workers.

Psychological InjuryPosttraumatic Stress DisorderWork-Related StressClient AssaultWarning LettersPersonnel DecisionGood FaithCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 23,894 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