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

In re Butcher

This case addresses three handicapped petitions seeking tuition and maintenance costs at the Summit Residential Treatment Facility under sections 232 and 234 of the Family Court Act. Judge Rudolph Di Blasi found all petitioners qualified for benefits. The court affirmed that tuition costs are reimbursable without parental means testing, but maintenance costs are subject to parental ability to pay. Crucially, the court asserted its discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of charges by service providers, rejecting the City of New York's argument that it must pay inflated costs. The decision detailed inflated administrative costs at Summit and deemed certain staffing ratios an unnecessary luxury at public expense. The court subsequently ordered specific, adjusted amounts for tuition and maintenance for each petitioner, directing the City of New York as the initial payor and the State of New York for partial reimbursement.

Family Court ActHandicapped ChildrenTuition ReimbursementMaintenance CostsParental ContributionJudicial DiscretionReasonableness of ChargesPublic FundsSummit Residential Treatment CenterEducational Costs
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Willo Packing Co. v. Butchers, Food Handlers & Allied Workers Union, Local 174

The Employer sued the Union for breach of a no-strike provision in their collective bargaining agreement, seeking damages. The Union moved to stay the action and compel arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the agreement's arbitration clause. The Employer countered that the grievance procedure leading to arbitration was exclusively for employee claims. District Judge Edward Weinfeld examined Articles 34 and 36 of the agreement, noting that the language regarding "complaints, grievances and disputes" implied a broader scope for arbitration beyond just employee grievances. Concluding that the no-strike breach could not be excluded with positive assurance from the arbitral process, the court granted the Union's motion, staying the action and directing the parties to arbitration.

Collective BargainingArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseLabor LawFederal CourtsContract InterpretationGrievance ProcedureMotion to StayNew York
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Karl Ehmer, Inc.

The claimant, a butcher, sustained a knee injury in the employer's parking lot after his shift while checking a flat tire. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied his claim, deeming it a personal act outside the scope of employment. On appeal, the court reversed, determining that the employer's parking lot was within the precincts of employment and that activities related to an orderly departure, such as checking a tire, could be compensable. The court concluded that the presumption of compensability under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 was not sufficiently rebutted by the employer.

Workers' CompensationParking Lot InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPersonal PursuitDeparture from WorkPresumption of CompensabilityFlat TireAppellate ReviewEmployer Benefit
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zivitz v. Zivitz Bros.

Claimant, a butcher, developed acute lobar pneumonia in September of 1974 due to daily exposure to cold refrigerators. Attempts to return to work led to a chronic pulmonary disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board found this to be an occupational disease as a result of repeated exposure to cold refrigerated air in his employment. The employer and its carrier appealed this decision, arguing the claimant did not suffer an occupational disease. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the claimant suffered an occupational disease.

Occupational DiseaseLobar PneumoniaChronic Pulmonary DiseaseCold ExposureButcherWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAffirmed DecisionEmployment-Related IllnessMedical CausationAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ7091661
Regular
Apr 02, 2014

JOSE CONTRERAS vs. SPECIALTY MEATS, INC., TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involved Jose Contreras alleging a continuous trauma injury to multiple body parts while employed as a butcher. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied his Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the findings of the administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found no industrial injury, relying on Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) reports that attributed the conditions to pre-existing or degenerative issues. The WCJ also found Contreras to be not credible due to inconsistencies and similarity to prior claims, and denied his attempt to elect against a specific defendant on the trial date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJIndustrial injuryFinal orderRemovalSpecialty MeatsInc.Travelers Casualty & Surety CompanyCompWest Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ7177577, ADJ7698472
Regular
Jun 25, 2012

JUAN MENDOZA vs. AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case involves applicant Juan Mendoza's workers' compensation claims for a specific back and leg injury on September 3, 2009, and cumulative trauma from November 1, 2009, to December 28, 2009. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the trial judge's findings, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found that the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report was not substantial evidence and ordered the evaluator to re-evaluate the cumulative trauma claim considering the applicant's entire employment history as a butcher. Furthermore, the Board indicated a need for further development of the record regarding the statute of limitations and post-termination claim issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code Section 5405Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination ClaimStatute of LimitationsCumulative Trauma
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found a causal relationship between a claimant's work as a butcher and his psychiatric disability (acute anxiety and depression). The employer did not dispute the claimant's suffering, only whether the work pressure was the cause. The Board, reversing a referee's "no causal relationship" finding, relied on the testimony of Dr. Kiev and the claimant. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that depressive reactions triggered by work can constitute an industrial accident and that such an accident can arise from prolonged unusual circumstances. The court emphasized that the causal relationship is a question of fact for the Board, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationPsychiatric DisabilityCausal RelationshipIndustrial AccidentJob PressureDepressive ReactionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBoard DecisionMedical Testimony
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00665
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2024

Matter of Vukotic v. Prince Food Corp.

Claimant Dobrica Vukotic, a butcher, established a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found an 80% temporary partial disability, requiring a work search. Claimant appealed, arguing for total disability and challenging the work search. The WCLJ later suspended benefits due to insufficient evidence of labor market attachment, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the 'permissible inference' for lost wages does not apply to temporary partial disabilities and that substantial evidence supported the finding of a lack of labor market attachment.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewWork Search RequirementWage LossAdministrative AppealClaimant's Burden of ProofJudiciary Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nebenhaus v. Lydmark Corp.

The claimant, a butcher and president of Lydmark Corporation, allegedly suffered heart attacks and failed to file a timely notice of claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board excused this delay, citing prompt medical attention and no prejudice to the carrier. However, the employer and its carrier appealed. The court found that the carrier did not receive notice within the statutory 30 days, and the Board's finding of no prejudice was unsupported. The claimant had previously indicated no intent to file a compensation claim on disability forms, and the employer corporation disbanded, hindering the carrier's investigation. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision, with costs to the carrier against the Workers’ Compensation Board, and remitted the matter for further proceedings on the issue of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation LawNotice of ClaimTimely NoticePrejudice to CarrierHeart AttackEmployer's Report of InjuryEmployee's Claim FormDisability BenefitsCorporate OfficerAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. ADJ12582828
Regular
Jan 03, 2023

TERRY KELLY vs. SAFEWAY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts. The primary dispute centers on the applicant's occupational group number, with the applicant claiming "butcher" (420) and the defendant arguing "meat cutter" (322), impacting permanent disability ratings. The Board granted reconsideration, finding insufficient evidence to determine the occupational group number and therefore deferring permanent disability for all affected body parts pending further development of the record. The finding of injury AOE/COE to the applicant's cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral knees, bilateral elbows, and bilateral wrists was upheld.

Occupational Group NumberMeat CutterButcherCumulative TraumaPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidenceFurther DevelopmentBody PartsWPI Ratings
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 15 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