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. 2023 NY Slip Op 05568
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2023

Matter of Orrego v. Knipfing

Lidia M. Orrego, a claimant, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The claimant had initially filed a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease, which a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed after discrediting her testimony. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On appeal, Orrego alleged conspiracy and fraud in the proceedings, submitting new documents. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's denial, finding no support for the claimant's contentions of improprieties and concluding that the Board did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abuse its discretion.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation ClaimApplication for ReconsiderationFull Board ReviewFraud AllegationsConspiracy AllegationsCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewAdministrative DiscretionDenial of Claim
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pixley v. Raymond Corp.

The petitioner initiated a proceeding under Executive Law section 298 to challenge an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated May 4, 1977. This order had affirmed an earlier decision by the State Division of Human Rights, which dismissed the petitioner's sex discrimination complaint against Raymond Corporation for lack of probable cause. The petitioner alleged that she was denied the option of a voluntary layoff offered to male employees and was required to perform work in a more difficult manner. Both the Division and the Appeal Board found no probable cause, determining that the petitioner was offered the layoff option but refused due to unemployment benefit concerns, and that male workers performed similar tasks. This court reviewed the record and concluded that the dismissal was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, thus upholding the previous findings without requiring a formal hearing. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Sex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationProbable CauseAdministrative ReviewVoluntary LayoffWork TransferTerminationHuman Rights LawAbuse of DiscretionJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Hoh

John Hoh, a retired participant in the Teamsters Fund, had his pension benefits suspended in 1981 by the Teamsters Fund, alleging violations of a 1980 reemployment rule. Hoh challenged this suspension, arguing the 1980 amendment was inapplicable to his retirement and that his current employment with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters did not violate its terms, even if applicable. The court found that the Teamsters Fund's retroactive application of the 1980 reemployment amendment to Hoh was arbitrary and capricious, stripping him of previously earned benefits without adequate notice or justification by actuarial concerns. Furthermore, the court determined that even if the rule were applicable, Hoh's employment with the IBT did not fall within the 'same industry, trade or craft, and same geographic area' as required by ERISA Section 203(a)(3)(B)(ii). The manner of suspension also breached fiduciary duties under ERISA, as the notification was defective and the Fund failed to provide a required appeals procedure. Therefore, the court granted Hoh's motion for summary judgment, concluding the suspension of benefits was inappropriate.

Pension BenefitsERISA ViolationLMRA ViolationSummary JudgmentArbitrary and CapriciousFiduciary DutyReemployment RuleRetroactive ApplicationVested RightsDue Process
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Benware v. New York Telephone Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's ruling that a self-insured employer was responsible for $300 in attorney expenses for a claimant's injury sustained in an automobile accident. The employer contested a $150 reimbursement portion, arguing it was arbitrary and lacked substantial evidence, as the attorney conceded only one trip to Albany was made, not two, and there was no proof the $150 expense for local counsel was incurred. The court agreed, finding the board's determination regarding the $150 for securing local counsel unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary. The decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the board for further proceedings.

Attorney FeesExpense ReimbursementTravel ExpensesAdministrative Law Judge DecisionsAppellate Court ReviewEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and Capricious RulingCase RemittalWorkers' Compensation ClaimsLegal Representation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Central New York Workers' Compensation Bar Ass'n v. State of New York Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners challenged the State of New York Workers’ Compensation Board’s policy that permitted the State Insurance Fund to install computer hardware in the Board’s Syracuse office, granting wireless Internet access to the Fund’s attorneys during proceedings, while denying the same to other attorneys. The Supreme Court found this policy to be arbitrary and capricious. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Board’s policy provided an unfair competitive advantage to the State Insurance Fund, which, despite its state agency status, functions as an insurer in proceedings before the Board. This disparate treatment in litigation access was deemed arbitrary and capricious.

Wireless Access PolicyArbitrary & CapriciousCompetitive AdvantageState AgencyInsurance FundEqual TreatmentLitigation AccessAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureOnondaga County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sines v. Opportunities For Broome, Inc.

Petitioner, a foreman, was dismissed from employment by a not-for-profit corporation in December 1987 for alleged misconduct, including sleeping on the job. After exhausting internal grievance procedures, which upheld the dismissal in September 1988, petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement and back pay. The court determined that an article 78 proceeding was appropriate against the not-for-profit corporation. Petitioner challenged the termination on procedural grounds and argued the finding of just cause was arbitrary and the penalty disproportionate. The court found no merit in petitioner's procedural claims and concluded that the finding of just cause was not arbitrary and capricious, and the penalty was not disproportionately harsh. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

CPLR Article 78Employment TerminationGrievance ProcedureNot-for-Profit CorporationArbitrary and CapriciousJust CauseWorkplace MisconductSleeping on JobFailure to SuperviseDue Process
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friends of Square v. Sadik-Khan

The petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the decision by the New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and the City of New York to install a bike share station in Lieutenant Joseph Petrosino Square Park. They contended that the installation violated the public trust doctrine and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court determined that while the park is impliedly dedicated parkland, the bike share station serves a proper park purpose. Furthermore, the court found that the respondents' decision to site the station was rational, based on technical considerations and public input, and was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied and dismissed in its entirety.

Public Trust DoctrineParkland UseBike Share StationsArticle 78 PetitionAdministrative ReviewMunicipal PlanningUrban DevelopmentNew York LawEnvironmental PolicyCommunity Engagement
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miele v. Town of Clarkstown

A police officer, after an initial back injury in 1998 for which he received General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, later ceased working again in 2000 due to continued back pain. The Chief of Police of the Town of Clarkstown denied his request for GML § 207-c benefits for this subsequent absence, determining it was unrelated to the original injury based on a doctor's report. The officer initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the denial as arbitrary and capricious and seeking to compel the Town to award benefits. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Chief of Police's determination had a rational basis in the record, thus not arbitrary and capricious.

Workers' CompensationPolice OfficerLine of Duty InjuryBenefits DenialCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousRational BasisAppellate ReviewBack InjuryGeneral Municipal Law 207-c
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 506 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