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. SAC 0343316
Regular
Aug 14, 2007

MELODY BRIDGES vs. SCHURMAN FINE PAPERS, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior order dismissing the applicant's petition, finding it was timely filed. Despite the applicant's petition being deemed timely, the Board, adopting the Judge's report, ultimately denied reconsideration of the original April 4, 2007 findings. This rescinds the dismissal order but affirms the denial of the initial request for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to VacateOpinion and Order Dismissing ReconsiderationTimeliness of FilingPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Findings and OrdersTemporary DisabilitySalary During DisabilityProof of ServiceElectronic Case History Log
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04412
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2017

Aprile-Sci v. St. Raymond of Penyafort R.C. Church

Kathleen Aprile-Sci, a volunteer Eucharistic Minister, allegedly tripped and fell at St. Raymond of Penyafort R.C. Church. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determined her injury was work-related and she was entitled to benefits, a decision she did not object to. Subsequently, Aprile-Sci and her husband commenced a personal injury action against the church. The church moved for summary judgment based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the WCB's final and conclusive determination barred a collateral attack in a plenary action.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusivity DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewVolunteer StatusPersonal Injury ClaimWCB DeterminationCollateral AttackTriable Issues of FactDiocese Insurance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. ADJ8838881
Regular
Jul 11, 2014

ALEXANDER ENGLISH vs. DALLAS MAVERICKS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for removal filed by the defendants, Dallas Mavericks and Zenith Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was filed on June 18, 2014, which was untimely. The original decision was issued on April 8, 2014, and the petitioner failed to file within the required 20-day period for personal service. The Board clarified that the 20-day deadline, not 25 days, applied, making the petition due by April 28, 2014.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingPersonal Service20-day DeadlineWCJ ReportStrom v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8838881Oakland District OfficeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDALLAS MAVERICKS
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of D'Errico v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant, a maintenance worker for the New York City Department of Corrections, sought workers' compensation benefits for severe major depressive disorder with psychotic features, post-traumatic stress disorder, and panic disorder, which he attributed to exposure to violent incidents at work. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, concluding he was not exposed to greater work-related stress than similarly situated employees. Claimant appealed both the initial denial (April 20, 2007) and the subsequent denial of reconsideration/full Board review (January 23, 2008), but failed to timely perfect the appeal from the initial decision. Consequently, the court's review was limited to whether the Board abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. Finding no abuse of discretion, as the claimant presented no new evidence or material change in conditions, and the Board had fully considered the issues, the court affirmed the Board's decision.

Mental Health ClaimsDepressive DisorderPTSDPanic DisorderWorkplace StressAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationFull Board ReviewDiscretionary ReviewTimeliness of Appeal
References
20
Case No. AHM 0079163
Regular
Aug 16, 2007

Ruth Torres vs. Bank of America, Cambridge Integrated Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed 43 days after the statutory deadline. The original order dismissing the lien was served by mail on April 19, 2007, making the reconsideration deadline May 14, 2007. Since the petition was received on June 26, 2007, it was untimely and therefore dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien claimantAdministrative Law JudgeNotice of Intention to Disallow LienUntimely PetitionStatutory PeriodLabor CodeBoard Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Forshee v. Gates Albert, Inc.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the apportionment of his workers' compensation award. The claimant had prior back injuries in 1988 and 1995, leading to lump-sum settlements, and suffered another work-related back injury in 2007. Initially, a workers’ compensation law judge attributed the disability solely to the 2007 injury. However, the Board modified this, apportioning 20% to the 2007 injury and dividing the remainder between the 1988 and 1995 injuries. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence, including the opinion of a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, supported the apportionment.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentPermanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryPrior InjuriesLump-sum SettlementOrthopedic SurgeonMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. Index No. 159601/16 Appeal No. 15885 Case No. 2021-02096
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2022

Matter of Nespoli v. Board of Trustees of the N.Y. City Employees' Retirement Sys.

Petitioners, members of NYCERS and other New York City retirement systems, were initially placed in Tier 4 after being hired as uniformed sanitation workers post-April 1, 2012. In 2016, NYCERS reclassified them from the Tier 4 Sanitation 20-Year retirement plan (SA-20) to the revised Tier 3/Tier 6 Sanitation 22-Year retirement plan (SA-22), citing an error. The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' request to annul this determination. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this judgment, concluding that the reclassification was not an error of law, nor did it violate the New York State Constitution, as petitioners were never contractually entitled to SA-20 benefits. The court also rejected the argument for equitable estoppel, noting NYCERS' statutory mandate to correct administrative errors.

Retirement benefitsPublic employeesReclassificationNew York City Employees' Retirement SystemTier 4Tier 3/Tier 6Sanitation 20-Year retirement planSanitation 22-Year retirement planRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeMartino v. City of New York

This case involves a CPLR article 78 petition challenging personnel orders No. 2012/1 and 2012/2, dated April 11, 2012, which reclassified 106 ungraded prevailing rate titles into 14 new occupational titles, affecting salaries and benefits of approximately 10,000 employees. Petitioners, who previously engaged in prevailing wage bargaining under Labor Law § 220, argued that the reclassification was a unilateral, arbitrary, and capricious action, violating Labor Law § 220 and Civil Service Law § 20 regarding reclassification provisions, notice, and public hearings. Respondents claimed they complied with Civil Service Law § 20 (1) and had the authority to reclassify titles, arguing that the action was a managerial prerogative and did not require State Civil Service Commission approval. The court found that the changes constituted a reclassification subject to Civil Service Law § 20, requiring notice, hearing, and State Civil Service Commission approval, which were not provided. Consequently, the court granted the petition and annulled the personnel orders.

Civil Service LawLabor LawReclassification of TitlesPrevailing Wage DisputesCPLR Article 78 PetitionAdministrative LawArbitrary and Capricious ActionPublic Employee RightsCollective BargainingGovernment Misconduct
References
13
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 31662(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

J Squared Software, LLC v. Bernette Knitware Corp.

The Supreme Court of New York County issued a judgment on July 26, 2007, affirming a prior order from June 18, 2007. This order had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for conversion of a software program, and vacated a preliminary injunction. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the plaintiff lacked a cause of action for conversion as the program was obtained under a valid contract and its return was never demanded. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was properly vacated upon the dismissal of the complaint.

conversionsoftware programsummary judgmentpreliminary injunctioncontract lawlicenseecause of actionappellate reviewjudgment affirmedcomplaint dismissal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,863 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