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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Shell v. Poughkeepsie Housing Authority

Claimant suffered a lawn mowing accident in July 1994, resulting in the amputation of two toes and a permanent 50% loss of function in his right foot. Initially, the Workers’ Compensation Board awarded him total and partial disability benefits, but these were suspended after he failed to appear for medical examinations. Claimant was later incarcerated on criminal charges, prompting a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge to close his case until his release, a decision affirmed by the Board. Claimant's subsequent request for reconsideration of the Board's decision was denied on April 5, 1999. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that the appeal was largely untimely regarding previous decisions and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationAmputationDisability BenefitsMedical ExaminationIncarcerationReconsiderationTimeliness of AppealAbuse of DiscretionStatutory Time PeriodNew York Workers' Compensation Law
References
6
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. 2020 NY Slip Op 06434 [188 AD3d 1403]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Liuni v. Gander Mtn.

Claimant Joseph D. Liuni sustained a left distal bicep tendon rupture in 2007, resulting in a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm. In 2014, he established a workers' compensation claim for his right shoulder, which was later amended in 2016 to include a consequential injury to his left shoulder. A physician determined a 27.5% SLU for the left arm due to the 2016 injury, which, when combined with the prior award, totaled an overall 50% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Board modified a WCLJ's determination, ruling that the bicep and shoulder injuries are not eligible for separate SLU awards as they both fall under awards for the left arm. Consequently, the Board deducted the 2007 22.5% SLU from the 2016 27.5% SLU, resulting in a 5% SLU award for the left arm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) limits SLU awards to statutorily enumerated members and that separate awards for subparts of a body member would constitute an unauthorized monetary windfall.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' CompensationAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentLeft Arm InjuryBicep Tendon RuptureShoulder InjuryPrior Award DeductionMonetary WindfallStatutory Interpretation
References
5
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. ADJ10857121
Regular
Sep 13, 2022

GEORGE ZEBER vs. NEW YORK YANKEES, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award concerning applicant George Zeber's claim against the New York Yankees and Travelers Indemnity Company. The Board amended the prior decision to defer the issue of insurance coverage to mandatory arbitration. Findings were amended to reflect that Travelers Indemnity Company insured the employer from April 5, 1976, to April 5, 1977, and the award was clarified to be against Travelers for future medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationInsurance CoverageMandatory ArbitrationCumulative Trauma PeriodMedical TreatmentMedical Record DevelopmentStatute of LimitationsPermanent DisabilityUSF&G
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bricklayers & Masons Local Union No. 5 Ohio Pension Fund v. Transocean Ltd.

This case involves a putative class action brought by pension funds, Bricklayers and Masons Local Union No. 5 Ohio Pension Fund and DeKalb County Pension Fund, against Transocean Ltd. and its CEOs, Robert Long and Jon A. Marshall. The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, claiming that a 2007 merger proxy statement contained false and misleading information about Transocean's environmental compliance, safety protocols, and training programs. The subsequent Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010 allegedly revealed these deficiencies, causing a significant drop in Transocean's stock price and shareholder losses. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted dismissal without prejudice for Bricklayers' claims and against Transocean Ltd., but denied the motion in all other respects, allowing DeKalb's claims and those against individual defendants to proceed, while granting leave for plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

Securities FraudProxy StatementMergerDeepwater HorizonOil SpillEnvironmental Law ComplianceCorporate GovernanceShareholder RightsMotion to DismissLoss Causation
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

European American Bank v. Strab Construction Corp.

The plaintiff-appellant filed a motion to resettle a prior decision from April 5, 1993, seeking to substitute Marla Strow for the deceased defendant Jerome Strow and to include prejudgment interest in the judgment. The court denied the substitution motion without prejudice, directing an application to the Surrogate's Court and then a motion in the Supreme Court. However, the branch of the motion concerning prejudgment interest was granted, leading to the recall and vacation of the original April 5, 1993 decision, and the substitution of the present decision and order. In this new decision, the appeal against Jerome Strow was dismissed, and the order pertaining to him was vacated because he died before the summary judgment motion was decided. Conversely, the court reversed the prior order concerning defendants Strab Construction Corp. and Gary Rabinowitz, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff for $1,205,000, and remitting the case for the calculation of prejudgment interest and attorney fees.

Promissory NotesSummary JudgmentPrejudgment InterestSubstitution of PartiesDeceased DefendantStatute of FraudsOral AgreementAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureNassau County
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 2,408 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