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. 2012 NY Slip Op 31770OJ
Regular Panel Decision

Floyd v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued judgments annulling mayoral personnel orders No. 2012/1 and 2012/2, dated April 11, 2012. These orders reclassified ungraded civil service titles, subject to prevailing wage bargaining under Labor Law § 220, to graded workers under the New York City Collective Bargaining Law. The annulment was affirmed because the City failed to comply with Civil Service Law § 20, which mandates notice, a public hearing, and State Civil Service Commission approval for such reclassifications. The concurring justices were Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman, and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

annulmentmayoral orderscivil serviceprevailing wagecollective bargaininglabor lawcivil service lawreclassificationpublic hearingstate civil service commission
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schwartz v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed April 25, 2012, ruled that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to her established work-related stress claim. The second decision, filed May 2, 2012, denied her payment for intermittent lost time. The court affirmed both decisions, finding that the employer's independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions regarding cardiac conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's determination that the claimant's Friday absences were for convenience, not disability, was also upheld by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealsCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyEnlarged Left AtriumWork-Related StressAdjustment DisorderIntermittent Lost Time Benefits
References
4
Case No. ADJ7781989; ADJ8262771
Regular
Oct 03, 2013

MIRIAN GARCIA vs. COOPER COLD FOODS, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY as administrator for STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is granting reconsideration of its own prior decision and rescinding a July 23, 2013 decision that had overturned a prior finding of 2% permanent disability for applicant's right knee injury. The WCAB determined that its August 9, 2012 order granting reconsideration was improvidently granted because the applicant had already filed a successive and improper petition for reconsideration. Consequently, the prior order and the subsequent rescinded decision are vacated, and the applicant's petition for reconsideration is dismissed.

WCABReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjurySuccessive PetitionImprovidently GrantedVacated
References
4
Case No. Docket No. 10
Regular Panel Decision

Zhong v. August August Corp.

Plaintiff Jian Zhong filed a class action against defendant August August Corp. alleging denial of overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Minimum Wage Act (NYMWA). Defendant August filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the FLSA overtime claims and related state law claims, but denied it in part, allowing the FLSA minimum wage claims and related state law claims to proceed. Plaintiff Zhong was granted leave to amend the complaint to address the deficiencies in the dismissed claims.

FLSANYMWAWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage ViolationMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) MotionLeave to AmendClass Action PotentialSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Bunn v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

The claimant, a mechanic, was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in December 2009. In August 2012, a doctor determined that his condition was causally related to his employment, leading him to file for workers' compensation benefits in October 2012. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found the claim time-barred, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, setting the disablement date as August 7, 2012, and establishing the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant's application was timely filed as he knew or should have known of the causal relationship on August 7, 2012.

occupational diseasecarpal tunnel syndrometimely filingdate of disablementmedical opinioncausal relationshipemployer liabilityappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceworkers compensation benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Dustin JJ.

This appeal concerns a Family Court order from Broome County, entered December 4, 2012, which adjudicated Dustin JJ. an abandoned child and terminated the respondent-father's parental rights. The child was placed in petitioner's custody shortly after birth in 2010, with the respondent declared the father in July 2011 and the mother surrendering her rights in August 2011. The petitioner initiated abandonment proceedings in February 2012, based on the respondent's failure to visit or communicate with the child or the agency during the critical six-month period from August 26, 2011, to February 26, 2012. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's finding, noting that the respondent's sporadic contacts (one visit and a few phone calls) were insufficient, and his incarceration did not excuse the lack of communication. The decision also upheld the Family Court's discretion in limiting cross-examination and dispensing with a dispositional hearing, reaffirming that a suspended judgment is not an available option after a finding of abandonment.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonment ProceedingSocial Services LawFamily Court AppealChild CustodyIncarcerated ParentFailure to CommunicateBurden of ProofDiscretion of Trial CourtSuspended Judgment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2014

Matter of Haynes v. Catholic Charities

The claimant, a caseworker, sought workers' compensation benefits in October 2012 for a psychological injury sustained from a client assault. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the claim, which the Board affirmed. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7), asserting the injury resulted from lawful personnel decisions (warning letters). However, the Board determined that while an April 2012 disciplinary action was partially lawful, a July 2012 warning lacked good faith. Evidence, including testimony from a licensed clinical social worker, indicated the claimant had been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder prior to the warning letters, stemming from work-related stress and a client assault. Additionally, disparaging remarks made by the claimant's supervisors regarding her condition were credited. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence that the claim was not barred by WCL § 2 (7) and that the claimant's stress was greater than that of similarly situated workers.

Psychological InjuryPosttraumatic Stress DisorderWork-Related StressClient AssaultWarning LettersPersonnel DecisionGood FaithCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1994

Savino v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that determined an employer-employee relationship existed between a limousine driver, who was also a shareholder, and UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc. The Board awarded workers' compensation benefits for injuries the claimant sustained while on duty. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, stating that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual issue supported by substantial evidence, consistent with prior case law. The court also rejected the respondent's stare decisis argument, clarifying that administrative determinations under one statute are not binding under another.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardLimousine driverSubstantial evidenceStare decisisUnemployment Insurance LawAppellate reviewIndependent contractor distinctionOn-duty injuryShareholder status
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Qavi v. Utog 2-Way Radio, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed April 24, 1997, which determined an employer-employee relationship existed between a claimant, a limousine driver, and Utog 2-Way Radio, Inc., a dispatched car service. The claimant was injured in an automobile collision and sought benefits. The Board’s finding of an employer-employee relationship, crucial for benefit eligibility, was upheld by the appellate court due to substantial evidence of control exerted by Utog over the claimant. This determination aligned with previous similar cases involving Utog and other limousine drivers. The court rejected Utog’s arguments regarding a lease agreement and insufficient notice of claim, affirming the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipLimousine DriverAutomobile CollisionSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewFactual IssueBoard DeterminationNotice of Claim
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,515 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