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

Claim of Engler v. United Parcel Service

Claimant, a delivery driver for United Parcel Service, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2001, alleging interstitial pulmonary fibrosis due to exposure to dust and irritants. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found he suffered an occupational disease and permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, but the Court reversed in 2003, remitting the case to consider accidental injury. In an amended decision, the Board ruled claimant sustained an accidental injury from airborne irritants. The employer and carrier appealed again. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's condition arose from unusual environmental factors within his delivery vehicle, consistent with medical opinions linking his lung disease to mixed dust exposure at work.

Interstitial Pulmonary FibrosisOccupational ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausally Related InjuryDelivery Vehicle EnvironmentAirborne IrritantsMedical TestimonyBiopsy FindingsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
Case No. CV-22-2154
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Naomi Dent

Naomi Dent, an employee of Amazon.com Services, Inc. in Staten Island, sustained injuries to her left foot, ankle, and lower leg while attempting to board a public bus on her second day of work, claiming she was pushed and trampled. She reported the incident approximately two weeks later and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied her claim, ruling that her injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, as the incident occurred off-premises and on public transportation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting the 'special hazard' alleged was a common risk of public transit, unrelated to employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentArise Out Of EmploymentGoing and Coming RulePublic TransportationOff-Premises InjurySpecial HazardAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBus Accident
References
7
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 530021, 531210
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Michel Salinas

The case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a claim for work-related injuries by Michel Salinas. The WCLJ initially identified Power Services Solutions LLC as the employer and Everest National Insurance Company as the carrier, despite a printing error on the notice of hearing. Everest's appeal to the Board was denied as untimely, a decision subsequently upheld by the full Board. The Appellate Division found that the Board abused its discretion in denying Everest's application for review, citing defective or misleading correspondence and strong evidence suggesting a fraudulent certificate of insurance. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the Board's responsibility to investigate potential fraud.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewTimeliness of AppealAbuse of DiscretionFraudulent DocumentsInsurance CoverageEmployer IdentificationNotice RequirementsAdministrative LawWork-Related Accident
References
20
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Case No. ADJ3591939 (LAO 07459514)
Regular
Jan 09, 2009

JUANA VENEGAS vs. X-CHANGE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE, in liquidation, by BROADSPIRE, MERLE NORMAN COSMETICS, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, INC.

AIG Claims Services, Inc. (AIG) appeals the WCJ's October 20, 2008 determination that the issue of applicant's alleged special employment by Merle Norman Cosmetics must be submitted to arbitration. The Appeals Board dismisses the petition for reconsideration, grants the petition for removal, and rescinds the submission to arbitration.

Special employmentCIGAcovered claimsarbitrationremovalreconsiderationinterim orderfinal orderprejudiceLabor Code section 5275(a)
References
11
Case No. 532689
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Monica Patricia Hidalgo Bernal (Poncefarfan, (dec'd) Otto)

Monica Patricia Hidalgo Bernal filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits after her spouse, a cab driver, was fatally stabbed while dispatched by New York Apple Car Service (NYACS). NYACS, a member of the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF), controverted the claim, contending the decedent was a black car operator, thus making the New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF) liable. The Workers' Compensation Board found the decedent to be an independent livery driver, holding NYACS and its ILDBF carrier responsible. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, referencing Matter of Cisnero v Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund, and reiterated that the vehicle's affiliation with NYBCOICF does not negate liability when the dispatch originated from an independent livery base.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndependent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF)New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF)Livery DriverBlack Car OperatorStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. ADJ4662216 (MON 0235398) ADJ1137113 (MON 0264731)
Regular
Jul 17, 2017

REBECCA WERTZ vs. HERBALIFE, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES

This case concerns Dr. Silver's lien claim for fees exceeding the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS). The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision denying the lien claim, finding no statutory or regulatory basis for an "extraordinary circumstances" exception to the OMFS for services rendered after January 1, 2004. The Board also rejected due process claims regarding the exclusion of evidence and the inability to cross-examine the defendant's bill review expert. The Board concluded that lien claimant failed to prove the services were extraordinary or to demonstrate entitlement to equitable relief.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleOMFSExtraordinary CircumstancesAdministrative Director RuleSB 228Labor Code Section 5307.1Equitable ReliefDue Process
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 21,805 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