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

Ginsberg v. Industrial Home for the Blind

The court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a case involving plaintiff Seymour Ginsberg, who sustained a transportation-related injury during his employment with the Industrial Home for the Blind. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's sole legal recourse was under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Special Term correctly granted the defendants' motion, thereby dismissing the complaint. This decision was based on the finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, making the Workers’ Compensation Law the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyTransportation InjuryEmployment
References
1
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00346 [135 AD3d 837]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2016

Mullen v. Helen Keller Services for the Blind

Andrea Mullen, the injured plaintiff, alleged that she tripped and fell over a treadmill at the defendant's facility in Hempstead while training. She filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the treadmill was an open and obvious condition and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentOpen and Obvious ConditionNegligenceDuty of CareReasonably Safe ConditionTriable Issue of FactAppellate ReviewSlip and Fall
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laramee v. Jewish Guild for the Blind

Plaintiff Laramee brought claims against her former employer, The Jewish Guild for the Blind (JGB), alleging employment discrimination based on disability (morbid obesity) and harassment, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, and New York State Human Rights Law. JGB moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that Laramee had previously signed a severance agreement containing a knowing and voluntary release of all claims against the employer. The District Court examined the "totality of the circumstances" regarding the waiver, including Laramee's legal representation, time to review the agreement, and compensation received. Concluding that Laramee had knowingly and voluntarily waived her claims, the court granted JGB's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Additionally, JGB's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Laramee and her attorney was denied, as the court found the complaint was not frivolous.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSeverance AgreementWaiverRelease of ClaimsMotion to Dismiss
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind

Plaintiff, an African-American woman, sued her employer, Jewish Guild for the Blind, and several supervisors, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, aiding and abetting, and constructive discharge under state and city human rights laws. Her claims stemmed from alleged racial slurs, unequal work conditions, and perceived demotion following a departmental reorganization. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff's performance issues, particularly regarding patient chart documentation, were legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for her treatment and eventual termination due to job abandonment. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the denial of summary judgment, finding plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of discrimination or to show defendants' reasons were pretextual. The court concluded that isolated racial remarks alone were insufficient to establish a hostile work environment or employment discrimination, as other alleged conduct was either unsupported, contradicted, or justified by legitimate business concerns.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimConstructive DischargeHuman Rights LawJob AbandonmentWork Performance IssuesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Paul S.

Respondent's 16-year-old son, legally blind and multihandicapped, has been in the petitioner's custody since 1976 after being adjudicated a neglected child. The Family Court of Chemung County granted the petitioner's application to extend placement for an additional 12 months, through December 10, 1987. The respondent appealed this determination. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, citing ample evidence that continuing the placement was in the child's best interest due to his specialized care and educational needs at the New York State School for the Blind. Testimony from a medical social worker highlighted the child's agitation after home visits and the respondent's difficulty in consistently disciplining her son.

Child PlacementFamily Court Act Article 10Extension of PlacementNeglected ChildSpecialized CareParental UnfitnessPsychological HarmBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewChemung County
References
2
Case No. ADJ3560082 (ANA 0380953)
Regular
Mar 12, 2009

MARGARITA SERRANO vs. 3 DAY BLINDS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claim by Huntington Beach Hospital for medical services rendered to an injured worker. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to reverse a prior finding, determining that contractual agreements between the hospital, Blue Cross, and the defendant insurer (SCIF) constitute an "express agreement" under Labor Code section 5304. This express agreement, which includes binding arbitration provisions, divests the WCAB of jurisdiction over the lien dispute. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded its prior award and ordered the parties to arbitrate the dispute according to the terms of their contract.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardState Compensation Insurance FundHuntington Beach HospitalComprehensive Contracting Hospital AgreementWorkers' Compensation Managed Care Service AgreementOther PayorLabor Code Section 5304Labor Code Section 4609Express AgreementBinding Arbitration
References
0
Case No. ADJ10322082
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

Marius Popa vs. 3 Day Blinds Corporation, Commerce and Industry Insurance Company

The defendant sought removal of a trial setting order, arguing it prevented necessary discovery regarding industrial causation before a scheduled PQME. However, the parties subsequently submitted a Compromise and Release agreement that resolved the entire claim. Because this settlement rendered the removal petition moot, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferencePanel Qualified Medical ExaminationIndustrial InjuryIndustrial CausationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseMoot PetitionWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ8139408
Regular
Jul 30, 2013

MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ vs. ARAMARK CLEAN ROOM SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a Petition for Removal filed by defendant Aramark Clean Room Services. The Board denied the petition, upholding the judge's decision to take an expedited hearing off calendar. The denial was based on defense counsel's failure to identify the correct employer, which was a prerequisite for addressing issues like Medical Provider Network disputes. The Board emphasized that parties have an affirmative duty to identify the responsible entity early in litigation and that inaccurate stipulations cannot be blindly accepted.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardARAMARK CLEAN ROOM SERVICESACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANYSEDGWICK CMSADJ8139408Los Angeles District OfficeRule 10550(a)identity of employersubstantial prejudice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 1999

Hussein v. Pacific Handy Cutter, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order dismissing a manufacturer's third-party complaint against an employer in a products liability action. The decision hinged on the finding that the plaintiff worker's left eye injury, resulting in corrected visual acuity of 20/40, did not constitute "total blindness" and therefore failed to meet the "grave injury" threshold specified in Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court noted the plaintiff remained employed and licensed to operate a motor vehicle, concluding that the injury was not sufficiently severe to allow the third-party action to proceed.

Products LiabilityGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawVisual ImpairmentSummary Judgment
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 26 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