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
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07810
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

Matter of Maunder v. B & B Lbr. Co.

Claimant, Elizabeth A. Maunder, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied her a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for her arms, related to occupational disease and cubital tunnel syndrome. Her treating orthopedic surgeon, Nathan Everding, opined a 25% SLU for each elbow after revision surgery, despite previous awards for her hands. The Board found Everding's testimony and reports insufficient and inconsistent with the New York State Guidelines for Determining Permanent Impairment, noting his inability to explain the percentage or identify required 'elbow defects' for ulnar nerve entrapment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's prerogative to accept or reject medical evidence and the claimant's burden to prove facts supporting her claim, which was not met under the guidelines.

Schedule Loss of UseSLU AwardCubital Tunnel SyndromeBilateral WristsOccupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionMedical Evidence InsufficiencyPermanent Impairment GuidelinesUlnar Nerve EntrapmentElbow Defects
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. C-4199
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Education of the Union-Endicott Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Board of Education of Union-Endicott Central School District initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination that certified the Endicott Teachers' Association as the exclusive negotiating agent for former members of OTASN. The School Board argued that permitting a non-attorney to represent the Teachers' Association violated Judiciary Law §§ 478 and 484, and that PERB's director improperly made the decision instead of the Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing. The court agreed with the School Board on both points, finding PERB's rule allowing lay representation to contravene state law and the director's decision arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court annulled PERB's determination and remanded the matter for a new hearing. Additionally, a motion to dismiss by Kathleen Osiecki, president of OTASN, was granted as OTASN was not formally a party to the proceeding.

labour relationspublic employmentcollective bargainingjudicial reviewPERBnon-attorney representationdue processadministrative law judgeunion certificationarbitrary and capricious
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fortunato v. Workers' Compensation Board

The petitioner appealed two rulings: a Supreme Court judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 application to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to renew his license, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. The Board had denied license renewal due to petitioner's failure to provide records, reapply, and demonstrate competency. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, ruling that the proceeding was time-barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations. Additionally, the court found that mandamus was not appropriate for a discretionary act and that the Board’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious.

License RenewalMandamusCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation BoardStatute of LimitationsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDiscretionary ActNonattorney Representative
References
15
Case No. 516033
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2014

MatterofSchwartzvStateInsuranceFund

Amara B. Schwartz appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The first appeal concerned a ruling that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to an established claim of adjustment disorder with mixed depressed mood and anxiety and chronic emotional stress. The second appeal challenged the Board's decision denying payment for intermittent lost time. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed both decisions. The court found that the independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and that the Board's determination regarding a further causally-related disability was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's denial of intermittent lost time benefits was upheld, as claimant's psychologist testified there was no psychological reason for her to take entire days off from work.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyLost Time BenefitsIndependent Medical ExaminationMedical OpinionsSubstantial Evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacMillen v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court judgment that had annulled a declaratory ruling by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board. The Board's ruling required owners of thoroughbred racehorses to provide workers’ compensation insurance for their jockeys. The petitioner, representing the Horsemens’ Benevolent and Protective Association, challenged this, arguing jockeys could be independent contractors. The Appellate Division held that determining employee status falls under the Board's exclusive jurisdiction and that the Board acted within its authority and was neither arbitrary nor capricious in its ruling.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceJockeysThoroughbred Race HorsesDeclaratory RulingIndependent ContractorsEmployeesState Racing and Wagering BoardJudicial ReviewHazardous OccupationExclusive Jurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
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. 2020 NY Slip Op 07633 [189 AD3d 1831]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Karwowska v. Air Tech Lab, Inc.

Three claimants appealed Workers' Compensation Board (Board) decisions denying their applications for review of Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) findings. The Board denied the applications because the claimants failed to fully complete question number 15 on their RB-89 forms, which required specifying the objection or exception made to the WCLJ's ruling and when it was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, stating that the Board has discretion to deny review when parties represented by counsel fail to comply with its procedural requirements. The court found that the claimants' responses were deficient as they only identified when the objection was made, not the specific objection itself, thus violating 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1), (2) (ii).

Workers' Compensation LawBoard ReviewProcedural ComplianceApplication for ReviewRB-89 formAdministrative ReviewWCLJ DecisionAppellate ProcedureRegulatory ComplianceClaim Denied
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 26,507 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