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

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

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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metz v. County of Suffolk

Petitioner Metz challenged the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR)'s determination of no probable cause regarding her disability discrimination complaint against the County of Suffolk, Department of Labor. Metz, a clerk/typist, alleged the County failed to accommodate her disability by transferring her to a worksite that worsened her medical condition, despite other alleged available positions. She contended that the NYSDHR's dismissal was arbitrary and capricious, partly due to insufficient time to present evidence. The court, applying the 'arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis' standard, found that Metz did not meet her burden. The court concluded that her claim was about commute length, not essential job functions, and lacked verified evidence, ultimately denying her application.

Disability discriminationReasonable accommodationHuman rights lawProbable causeAdministrative reviewArbitrary and capriciousSuffolk CountyClerk/typistEmployment lawWorksite transfer
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terito v. John S. Swift Co.

Dominick A. Terito, a former employee of John S. Swift Co., Inc., sought a declaratory judgment regarding his pension rights after his employment was terminated. The company's retirement committee forfeited his benefits, citing "wilful misconduct financially injurious to the Company" for leaving work early due to a son's medical emergency. Terito contended this forfeiture was arbitrary and capricious, especially given the company's inconsistent enforcement of rules and his 35 years of service. The court found no demonstrable financial injury to the corporation and concluded that the committee's determination was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The plaintiff was granted a vested interest in the pension plan, but his claim for immediate damages was dismissed as he had not yet reached the age of eligibility for benefits.

Pension RightsEmployee TerminationWillful MisconductForfeiture of BenefitsArbitrary and CapriciousERISA ApplicabilityCompany Pension PlanEmployment LawDeclaratory ReliefAbuse of Discretion
References
26
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01967 [159 AD3d 1234]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Matter of Brasher v. Sam Dell's Dodge Corp.

David Brian Brasher appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Board had previously affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that Brasher had a 75% permanent partial disability but suspended awards due to his lack of attachment to the labor market. The Appellate Division's review was confined to whether the Board's denial of reconsideration was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The claimant failed to present newly discovered evidence, a material change in condition, or demonstrate that the Board overlooked issues in its initial determination. The court found no arbitrary or capricious action, noting the claimant's argument for total disability contradicted his own physicians' findings of a 75% permanent partial disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewClaimant Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maida v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

Plaintiff Anthony Maida sued Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) after his long-term disability benefits were terminated. Maida initially claimed physical disability due to a fall and later asserted mental disability from post-traumatic stress disorder. The court granted LINA's motion for summary judgment on the physical disability claim, finding LINA's denial was not arbitrary and capricious based on multiple medical reports. Additionally, LINA was awarded $10,155 on its counterclaim for overpaid benefits. However, the court vacated LINA's rejection of the mental disability claim, deeming it arbitrary and capricious due to the lack of proper medical review, and remanded the matter to LINA for reconsideration, while retaining jurisdiction.

Disability BenefitsERISA LitigationSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious ReviewRemand to AdministratorPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderPhysical Injury ClaimMental Health ClaimInsurance Policy DisputeOverpayment Reimbursement
References
19
Case No. 12 Civ. 5645(KPF)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2015

Wedge v. Shawmut Design & Construction Group Long Term Disability Insurance Plan

This case involves Plaintiff William Wedge's challenge under ERISA against the Shawmut Plan and Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (RSLI) for the termination of his long-term disability benefits. Wedge, a former Senior Project Manager, suffered from Central Serous Chorioretinopathy (CSCR) and had his benefits denied by RSLI, which determined he was not "Totally Disabled" under the "Any Occupation" clause. The court applied an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, considering RSLI's structural conflict of interest but finding it warranted minimal weight. Ultimately, the court concluded that RSLI's decision, supported by comprehensive medical and vocational evidence, including an Independent Medical Examination, was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and Defendants' motion was granted.

ERISA LitigationLong Term DisabilityBenefits DenialArbitrary and Capricious ReviewSummary Judgment MotionDiscretionary AuthorityConflict of InterestCentral Serous ChorioretinopathyMedical EvidenceVocational Assessment
References
46
Case No. 526927
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Matter of Curry v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles

In Matter of Curry v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, petitioner Joseph P. Curry appealed a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition. Curry's driver's license was revoked in 2012 due to a fifth alcohol-related driving offense. His 2017 application for relicensing and a hardship exception was denied by the Department of Motor Vehicles' Driver Improvement Bureau and affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Board. Curry challenged this denial as arbitrary and capricious, citing rehabilitation efforts and medical needs for a license. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, finding the Commissioner's denial was not arbitrary or capricious given Curry's history of multiple relapses, traffic infractions, and an incomplete DWI evaluation, despite his claims of sobriety and medical appointments.

Driver's License RevocationAlcohol-Related OffensesHardship ExceptionCPLR article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardDepartment of Motor VehiclesReissuance DiscretionRehabilitation EffortsMedical Limitations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n

TransAtlantic Lines LLC sought to overturn an adverse insurance coverage decision by the Board of Directors of American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, following a shipping accident. TransAtlantic argued for a de novo review, asserting the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process was fundamentally unfair due to the Board's inherent financial bias and violated public policy. The district court, however, applied the contractually agreed-upon "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. The court rejected TransAtlantic's claims of bias and public policy violations, finding that TransAtlantic had voluntarily consented to the ADR framework. Consequently, the court upheld the Board's decision to deny coverage for attorney's fees, U.S. Government cargo losses, and perishable cargo expenses, concluding that these denials were not arbitrary or capricious.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardContract LawMarine InsuranceJudicial Review of ArbitrationWaiver of RightsPublic Policy ExceptionAttorney Ethics
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 423 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