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 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1999

In re the Arbitration between State Insurance Fund & Country-Wide Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dated June 15, 1999. This order granted a workers' compensation insurer's application to vacate an arbitration award that had denied its claim against an automobile liability insurer as time-barred. The court also denied the automobile insurer's cross-motion to confirm the award. The case was remanded for a rehearing on the workers' compensation insurer's claim for payments made to an injured worker within the three-year Statute of Limitations, commencing from December 4, 1994, the date of the arbitration proceeding. The court found that the arbitrator's acceptance of the Statute of Limitations defense was arbitrary and capricious, as precedent establishes a three-year limitation period from the date of the first payment, not the date of injury, only precluding recovery of payments made more than three years prior to the commencement of suit.

Automobile LiabilityArbitration Award VacatedStatute of Limitations DefenseJudicial Review StandardArbitrary and Capricious RulingInter-insurer ClaimRemand for RehearingAppellate AffirmationLegal PrecedentClaim Timeliness
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2008

Aminzadeh v. Hyosung USA

The claimant, a machine operator, sustained a left hand injury in 2005. During treatment for this injury, she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist. A separate claim for carpal tunnel syndrome was established as an unrelated occupational disease, with a disablement date of June 2007 by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier appealed the Board’s ruling on the date of disablement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the selection of June 2007 as the date of disablement was supported by substantial evidence, as the condition was objectively diagnosed then.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeDate of DisablementSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLeft Hand InjuryMachine OperatorMedical DiagnosisBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. 15-36090
Regular Panel Decision

In re Covelli

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors' motion to reopen their Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and imposed sanctions on creditor William Clement for violating the discharge injunction. Clement had pursued a deficiency judgment in state court on a discharged mortgage debt, despite previous court orders. The Court found Clement in contempt and ordered him to withdraw the state court proceeding, imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance. The Court denied Clement's separate motion to declare an earlier Chapter 13 petition date as the effective date for the Chapter 7 discharge, reaffirming the June 15, 2015 Chapter 7 petition date.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionSanctionsMotion to ReopenPetition DateDeficiency JudgmentContemptChapter 7Chapter 13Automatic Stay
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Pension Committee of Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) petitioned the court to terminate underfunded retirement benefit plans associated with Pan American World Airways, citing an unreasonable increase in potential long-run liability as per 29 U.S.C. § 1342(c). The Pension Committee of Pan American World Airways and several unions intervened, opposing both the termination and the proposed July 24, 1991 termination date. The court reviewed PBGC's termination decision under the Administrative Procedure Act's 'arbitrary and capricious' standard, ultimately finding it justified by substantial evidence of the plans' underfunding and the company's inability to meet its contribution obligations. The court dismissed arguments regarding internal PBGC guidelines, stating they do not have the force of law and were, in any event, adhered to due to 'extraordinary circumstances'. For the termination date, the court applied the Broadway Maintenance test, requiring 'constructive notice' sufficient to extinguish beneficiary reliance, and determined July 31, 1991, as the appropriate date, based on widespread public awareness of PBGC's petition by that time. The court therefore granted the petition for termination.

Pension plan terminationPBGCERISAUnderfunded plansTermination dateConstructive noticeAdministrative Procedure ActArbitrary and capricious standardDistrict CourtPan American World Airways
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1978

Claim of Falcone v. Western Electric Co.

The case involves an appeal of a Workers' Compensation Board decision that set the claimant's date of disablement as July 30, 1973. The claimant, an employee of Western Electric Company, Inc., developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to polyurethane exposure, initially experiencing symptoms in 1966. While a medical report from Dr. Ehret in 1966 identified bronchial asthma, the condition was not considered disabling until July 30, 1973, when the claimant first lost work time due to respiratory issues. The Board's decision, which also discharged the Special Fund from liability under section 25-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law, was affirmed by the appellate court, finding substantial evidence to support the determination of the disablement date.

Occupational DiseaseChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseBronchial AsthmaPolyurethane ExposureToluene Diisocyanate (TD1)Date of DisablementWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial FundsSubstantial EvidenceMedical Testimony
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00065 [179 AD3d 426]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Matter of Mooney v. New York City Tr. Auth.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment denying a petition to vacate a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The PERB determination, dated February 21, 2018, had dismissed petitioner Burke's improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and Transport Workers Union Local 100 (TWU). The court found PERB's determination was not arbitrary and capricious or legally impermissible, as Burke failed to allege facts showing TWU engaged in arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct regarding his grievances. Consequently, Burke was precluded from litigating directly against NYCTA for a breach of Civil Service Law § 209-a (1).

Improper Practice ChargeDuty of Fair RepresentationPERB DeterminationCPLR Article 78Collective BargainingGrievance ProcessUnion RepresentationPublic EmploymentAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
5
Case No. 15 NY3d 713
Regular Panel Decision

Raynor v. Landmark Chrysler

This case addresses the interpretation of amendments to New York's Workers’ Compensation Law concerning lump-sum deposits into the Aggregate Trust Fund (ATF). Claimant Randy Raynor suffered a permanent partial disability in 2004, and in 2008, his employer's carrier, Erie Insurance Company of New York, was ordered to deposit the present value of his uncapped award into the ATF. The carrier challenged this, arguing retroactivity, speculation in calculation, and constitutional violations. The Workers’ Compensation Board and Appellate Division upheld the order. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the plain language of the amended statute mandates such deposits for awards made after the effective date, irrespective of the injury date, and that this application is not retroactive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional.

Workers' Compensation LawAggregate Trust FundPermanent Partial DisabilityNon-Schedule AwardsStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentRetroactivityConstitutional LawInsurance CarriersNew York Court of Appeals
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,426 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