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. 2023 NY Slip Op 01714 [214 AD3d 1273]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

Matter of Daly v. New York City Off. of Mgt. & Budget

Dante E. Daly, a budget analyst for the New York City Office of Management & Budget (OMB), filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging injuries from World Trade Center (WTC) toxin exposure after the 9/11 attacks. He claimed participation in WTC rescue, recovery, and cleanup operations by performing budgetary analysis for these efforts. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, finding his activities were not covered by Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A as he was not a direct participant. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, concurring that claimant's job duties as a budget analyst lacked a direct or tangible connection to the WTC rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations. The Court also addressed and dismissed claimant's procedural arguments regarding OMB's alleged waiver of defenses.

Workers' CompensationWorld Trade Center9/11 ExposureBudget AnalystLatent ConditionsTimelinessWaiver of DefensesStatutory InterpretationDirect ParticipationTangible Connection
References
10
Case No. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

MELVIN ISAAC vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Neary v. New York State Division of Budget

Five employees of the Division of Military and Naval Affairs State Emergency Management Office (DMNA) sought to annul a determination by the Director of the New York State Division of the Budget (DOB). The petitioners worked emergency overtime following the September 11, 2001 attack. DOB retroactively applied a 12% salary limitation from Civil Service Law § 134 (5) to their emergency overtime, which was earned under Civil Service Law § 134 (6). The court determined that DOB lacked statutory authority to impose such a cap on extreme emergency overtime, as section 134 (6) does not contain this limitation. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulling DOB's determination and ordering the processing of overtime pay requests without the applied 12% limitation.

overtime payemergency servicesCivil Service Lawstatutory interpretationadministrative discretionbudgetary limitationsWorld Trade Center attackNew York State lawgovernment employeesdisaster response
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Booker v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems

Plaintiff Anthony Booker, a black employee of Budget Rent-A-Car in Nashville, alleges race discrimination and racial harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, along with retaliation. He claims General Manager Guy Grundman subjected him to severe verbal abuse, racial slurs, and disproportionately harsh treatment, leading to a demotion in January 1993. Booker further alleges he was denied a promotion in April 1993 and retaliated against with a negative performance evaluation and denial of an Airport Manager position after filing an EEOC charge. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Booker's claims of racial harassment and discrimination regarding his demotion may proceed, but his failure to promote, retaliation, and wage discrimination claims were dismissed.

Racial HarassmentRace DiscriminationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Hostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentDemotionEmployment LawSupervisor LiabilityDisparate Treatment
References
49
Case No. 04-15-00297-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2015

Hetul Bhakta DBA Budget Inn v. Texas Department of Transportation and Ballenger Construction Company

Appellant Hetul Bhakta d/b/a Budget Inn sued the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for flood damage to his property, asserting claims of nuisance, inverse condemnation, and negligent operation of motor-driven equipment. The flooding allegedly resulted from construction work on Highway 281 performed by Ballenger Construction Company. The trial court granted TxDOT's First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, dismissing all claims against TxDOT, which TxDOT now seeks to affirm on appeal. TxDOT argues that Bhakta failed to establish a valid waiver of sovereign immunity, contending that the inverse condemnation claim lacks requisite intent, public use, and causation elements, and that the negligence claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act fails because no government employee operated the equipment and there is an insufficient causal nexus. Furthermore, TxDOT asserts that the nuisance claim is dependent on a valid constitutional taking, which Bhakta has not demonstrated.

Inverse CondemnationSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFlood DamageMotor-Driven EquipmentNuisance ClaimContractor NegligencePlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Willis

The debtor, Trennis Earl Willis, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. An asset in his estate is a personal injury claim, for which he had a contingency fee contract with attorney Frank L. Supercinski. Supercinski sought approval for his fees ($20,000 plus expenses) from a $50,000 settlement of the personal injury claim and approval of a disbursement scheme. Both the Debtor and the Chapter 7 Trustee objected, arguing the contingency fee contract was executory and rejected by the estate. The Court, presided over by Judge Donald R. Sharp, found the contingency fee agreement to be executory and deemed rejected as not assumed by the Trustee. However, applying the common fund doctrine, the Court acknowledged Supercinski's entitlement to fees from the settlement proceeds with priority. Despite this, all of Supercinski's motions (for fees, settlement approval, and relief from stay) were denied due to procedural flaws, such as the settlement not being finalized or approved, and the lack of a settlement agreement copy. The Court clarified that the settlement check is property of the Debtor's estate and must be administered under bankruptcy rules, instructing Supercinski to file a proper application once the settlement is finalized and approved.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyContingency Fee AgreementAttorney's FeesExecutory ContractAutomatic Stay ReliefCommon Fund DoctrineQuantum MeruitTexas LawPersonal Injury SettlementBankruptcy Estate
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2012

Williams v. Orange & Sullivan Excavating Corp.

This case concerns an appeal challenging the approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Supreme Court, Orange County, initially granted the petition for approval, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The ruling reiterates that employees must obtain either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of settlement to maintain workers' compensation benefits. However, a nunc pro tunc order can still be granted after three months if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the employee's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced. The appellate court concluded that the Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in granting the nunc pro tunc approval, aligning with established legal precedent regarding such petitions.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Personal Injury SettlementNunc Pro TuncJudicial ApprovalWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate AffirmationDelay ExcuseReasonable SettlementCarrier PrejudiceJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singh v. Ross

The plaintiffs appealed an order from Queens County, dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). This law requires either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of a settlement to avoid forfeiture of future workers' compensation benefits. While judicial approval can be sought beyond the three-month period if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the party's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found the over one-year delay in seeking approval was attributable to the plaintiffs' own fault or neglect. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ApprovalSettlementNunc Pro TuncDelay in ApplicationCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionForfeiture of Benefits
References
6
Case No. 03-06-00501-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2007

Edd Hendee, Individually and as Executive Director of C.L.O.U.T. v. David Dewhurst, Tom Craddick, State of Texas, and the Texas Legislative Budget Board

This case originated from a suit filed by Edd Hendee and Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes (C.L.O.U.T.) against the Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, Comptroller, members of the Legislative Budget Board, and the State of Texas. Plaintiffs challenged H.B. 1, enacted in response to the Neeley v. West Orange Cove case, which aimed to shift public school funding. They alleged that H.B. 1's appropriation violated Article VIII, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 316 of the Government Code by exceeding the biennial cap on the rate of growth of appropriations. Plaintiffs also argued that Chapter 316 constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The district court granted the State Defendants' plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the unconstitutional delegation claim but reversed and remanded the claims regarding the unconstitutionality and illegality of H.B. 1's appropriation for further proceedings, noting that Plaintiffs are entitled to amend their pleadings to address associational standing defects.

Constitutional LawState AppropriationsSpending CapLegislative Budget BoardTaxpayer StandingSeparation of PowersJudicial ReviewPublic School FinanceTexas ConstitutionGovernment Code
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cosgrove v. County of Ulster

Petitioner, injured in a work-related accident, received workers' compensation and subsequently settled a third-party tort action against the respondent for $15,000. Petitioner's counsel believed the employer's insurance carrier had approved a one-third share of the settlement but the carrier failed to provide disbursement instructions for its portion. After the carrier terminated workers' compensation benefits, petitioner sought judicial approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court granted this approval, which the carrier then appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the settlement amount was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial approval was not due to petitioner's fault, and the carrier was not prejudiced by the delay.

Workers' CompensationPersonal Injury SettlementNunc Pro Tunc ApprovalJudicial DiscretionCarrier ConsentThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewSettlement ReasonablenessDelay ExcuseLack of Prejudice
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,415 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