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
Jul 09, 1980

Claim of Vaccaro v. Sperry Rand Corp.

A 54-year-old research department head died after jogging during his lunch hour on his employer's premises. The employer permitted this activity and provided an athletic facility, the Sperry Rand Athletic Club, to its employees, supporting its functions through commissions and allowing its name to be used. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the decedent's death was causally related to and arose out of strenuous exertion during the course of his employment, a finding supported by medical testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the intimate relationship between the employer and the athletic club and the employer's ability to terminate such activities at will.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer PremisesLunch Hour ActivityAthletic FacilityCausationDeath BenefitAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04590 [162 AD3d 950]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Sullivan v. New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y.

John Sullivan sued New York Athletic Club of City of New York (NYAC) and Talisen Construction Corporation (Talisen) for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence, sustained while carrying a heavy beam down stairs during a bathroom renovation. Talisen and NYAC sought indemnification from Premier Woodcraft, Ltd. (Premier), Sullivan's employer and a subcontractor. The Supreme Court denied various summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting Premier's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and contractual indemnification claims (except for defense costs). The court also granted Talisen's cross-motion for defense costs against Premier, and affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Sullivan on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, finding his injury was not caused by an elevation-related hazard, and for both parties regarding breach of insurance agreements due to unresolved factual issues.

Labor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related HazardContractual IndemnificationBreach of Agreement to Procure InsuranceSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nichols v. Hale Creek ASACTC

This case concerns an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim where a claimant was injured during an off-duty athletic activity. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. This decision was based on evidence that the claimant was specifically directed to improve staff morale and that his involvement in employee athletic activities, such as coaching a volleyball team for the Olympics, furthered this directive. The claimant's supervisor also testified that evaluating staff morale was part of assessing leadership ability and that superintendents were expected to be involved in facility-related events. The court affirmed the Board's factual determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryOff-duty ActivityStaff MoraleAthletic ActivityCourse of EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceLeadership AbilityWork-related DutiesSuperintendent
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dorosz v. Green & Seifter

The case concerns a workers' compensation claim filed by the widow of an accountant who died from a heart attack while bowling in a league sponsored by a client of his firm. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, ruling that the death did not arise out of employment, as the bowling was a voluntary, off-duty athletic activity. This decision was based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 10, which restricts benefits for such activities unless the employer required participation, compensated the employee, or sponsored the activity. The Appellate Division upheld the Board's determination, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no evidence that the employer met any of the statutory criteria for compensation. The court emphasized that a benefit to the employer alone is not sufficient, and the activity did not constitute part of the employee's work-related duties.

Workers' CompensationOff-Duty ActivityAthletic InjuryEmployer SponsorshipVoluntary ParticipationWork-Related DutiesHeart AttackStatutory InterpretationNew York LawAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 1978

Claim of Bender v. Long Island Lighting Co.

A claimant sustained an arm injury while playing football with coemployees during lunch hour on the employer's parking lot. The record indicated that employees, including supervisory personnel, frequently engaged in athletic activities on the employer's premises, and these activities were not prohibited. Employees remaining on premises for lunch were not required to punch out and were subject to call. The Workers' Compensation Board found that the employer was aware of these activities and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationLunch Break InjuryRecreational Activity InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer KnowledgeSupervisory ParticipationParking Lot InjuryFootball InjuryAccidental InjuryBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of General Elec. Co. (Elec., Etc., Workers)

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ8 156794
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

NURY PEREZ vs. BLUE RIVER DENIM, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed a lien claim due to a failure to pay a $100 lien activation fee. The lien claimant, Premier Psychological Services (PPS), claims computer issues prevented timely payment. While the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, the WCAB may rescind the dismissal if PPS pays the activation fee within ten days of this notice. If paid, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06WCABadministrative law judgereconsiderationrescissiondismissallien conferenceCompromise and Releaseindustrial injury
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,431 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