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

Schmidt v. Buffalo General Hospital

This case concerns a motion filed by defendants Buffalo General Hospital, Drs. Canver, and Drs. Guanzon, seeking to reduce a plaintiff's award for past and future lost earnings. The defendants argued for an offset based on collateral sources, specifically the plaintiff's Social Security retirement benefits, benefits received as a wife, and her husband's retirement benefits from Niagara Mohawk, citing CPLR 4545 (a). The plaintiff contested the statute's applicability and asserted that these benefits were not direct reimbursements for lost earnings. Presiding Justice Kevin M. Dillon determined that Social Security retirement benefits, derived from past employment and age, do not directly replace lost earnings. Similarly, spousal or husband's retirement benefits were not found to correspond to the plaintiff's lost wages. Consequently, the court found that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to establish the necessary correspondence between the alleged collateral sources and the jury's award, leading to the denial of the motion to reduce the award.

Medical MalpracticeCollateral Source RuleLost EarningsSocial Security BenefitsCPLR 4545 (a)DamagesMotion to Reduce AwardCivil ProcedureNew York LawTort Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelly v. Seager

This decision addresses the question of whether the collateral source rule, CPLR 4545 (c), limits the award an insurer may recover in a subrogation action. Nationwide Insurance Company, on behalf of its insureds Parker and Marian Kelly, sought to recover fire damages from defendants Diane Seager, Harold Taylor, and Janet Taylor. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing CPLR 4545 (c) should reduce the award by the amount Nationwide paid its insureds, citing the rule's aim to prevent double recovery. The court denied the motion, ruling that the insurer, Nationwide, is the real plaintiff in a subrogation action, not its insureds, and thus has not received reimbursement from a collateral source. The court concluded that applying CPLR 4545 (c) in this context would not advance the legislative goal of reducing insurance premiums and that the burden should remain with the tort-feasor's insurer.

Collateral Source RuleSubrogation ActionCPLR 4545 (c)Insurance LawSummary Judgment MotionFire DamageTort LawDouble RecoveryLegislative IntentStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oden v. Chemung County Industrial Development Agency

In a personal injury case arising from a 1988 incident where plaintiff Oden was struck by a falling steel column, a jury awarded damages for various economic losses. The trial court initially reduced the future economic loss award based on anticipated disability retirement benefits, citing CPLR 4545 (c). The Appellate Division modified this, ruling that CPLR 4545 (c) only permits reduction for collateral source payments that directly correspond to specific categories of awarded economic loss. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that the statute, enacted in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed to prevent double recovery without conferring an undeserved windfall on tort defendants, thus requiring a direct linkage between the item of loss and the type of collateral reimbursement.

Collateral Source RuleCPLR 4545(c)Personal Injury DamagesEconomic LossStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation OffsetDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewTort ReformDouble Recovery Prevention
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Menter v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc.

Ruth Menter suffered personal injuries in 1986. The Wyoming County Department of Social Services filed a lien for Medicaid benefits paid to Menter, totaling $9,587.19, against any recovery in her personal injury action. Menter moved for an order vacating this lien, arguing it should not apply as she was not seeking an award for medical expenses, and that CPLR 4545 (c) would reduce any such award. The Department contended it was entitled to the full amount of its lien from any recovery obtained by an adult recipient. The court held that Social Services Law § 104-b is broad enough to authorize recovery for the full lien amount against an adult recipient, distinguishing cases involving infant recipients. The court also rejected Menter's reliance on CPLR 4545 (c), stating it would not apply if no claim for medical expenses was made, or if it did, collateral source indemnification from a source with a legal lien would be excluded. Therefore, the motion to vacate the lien was denied.

Personal InjuryMedicaid LienSocial Services LawCPLR 4545 (c)Public AssistanceLien EnforcementCollateral Source RuleAdult RecipientStatutory InterpretationMotion Denied
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04257 [231 AD3d 250]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2024

Liciaga v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Robert Liciaga, who sustained severe personal injuries including paralysis due to an accident involving the New York City Transit Authority, was awarded substantial damages by a jury, including $40,000,000 for future medical expenses. The New York City Transit Authority appealed, contending that it was entitled to a collateral source hearing under CPLR 4545 to determine if Liciaga's future medical expenses could be offset by insurance coverage available through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), despite his uninsured status. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's denial of this request. It ruled that the defendant should be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that the plaintiff's future medical expenses could be reasonably certain to be reduced by available ACA insurance, emphasizing the statutory intent of CPLR 4545 to prevent double recovery and the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the collateral source hearing, while other aspects of the judgment, including reduced pain and suffering awards, were affirmed.

Personal InjuryCollateral SourceCPLR 4545Affordable Care ActFuture Medical ExpensesDouble RecoveryMitigation of DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictNegligence
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kihl v. Pfeffer

Plaintiff Merryl Kihl was injured in a car accident in 1995, sustaining ankle and C2 vertebra fractures, and subsequently developed chronic pain. She sued Karl O. Pfeffer (driver) and County of Nassau (road design). A jury found both defendants negligent, apportioning 13% fault to Pfeffer and 87% to the County. Kihl was awarded significant damages for past and future pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost earnings. The County appealed, seeking to reduce the jury's award for future medication expenses via a collateral source hearing under CPLR 4545 (c). The Supreme Court denied the reduction, finding the County failed to establish with "reasonable certainty" that Kihl's husband's health insurance would cover future medication costs, citing factors like Finnell's job insecurity, changing benefits, the strained marriage, and Kihl's uninsurability. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, upholding the jury's damage awards and the denial of the collateral source reduction, emphasizing the strict construction of CPLR 4545 (c) and the high "reasonable certainty" standard of proof.

Collateral Source RuleCPLR 4545 (c)Reasonable Certainty StandardFuture Medical ExpensesPersonal Injury DamagesJury VerdictsAppellate ReviewHealth Insurance CoverageSpousal DependencyEconomic Loss
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1997

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) filed a class action grievance against the County of Nassau on behalf of five Construction Inspector Trainees whose employment was terminated in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. An advisory arbitrator recommended in favor of the CSEA, but the County Executive overturned this decision. CSEA and the individual employees then initiated proceedings under CPLR articles 75 and 78, and sought damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court dismissed the CPLR proceedings and individual breach of contract claims, while allowing CSEA to pursue its breach of contract claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the advisory arbitrator's recommendation was not binding and that CPLR article 78 was not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceAdvisory ArbitrationCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Breach of ContractPublic EmployeesEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewNassau County
References
5
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shue v. Red Creek Central School District

This opinion addresses post-verdict motions concerning collateral source deductions and preverdict interest on future damages following a verdict for the plaintiff in a wrongful death action. Joseph Shue's wife, Donna Shue, and their children, Joseph, Derek, and Ryan Shue, were awarded damages after Joseph Shue's death in a workplace accident involving defendants Red Creek Central School District and Dominick P. Massa and Sons, Inc. The court ruled that Social Security benefits received by Mrs. Shue are deductible collateral sources under CPLR 4545. However, life insurance proceeds from Prudential and Guardian, despite being employer-paid, were deemed exempt from deduction, consistent with the statute's exemption for life insurance. Furthermore, the court resolved a conflict between EPTL 5-4.3 and CPLR Article 50-B regarding preverdict interest on future damages in wrongful death actions. Citing Pay v State of New York, the court held that CPLR Article 50-B, enacted after Milbrandt v Green Refractories Co., should be applied, mandating that future damages be discounted to the date of liability determination for interest calculation and attorney's fees.

Collateral SourceFuture DamagesPreverdict InterestWrongful Death ActionLabor Law ViolationsCPLR 4545CPLR Article 50-BEPTL 5-4.3Social Security BenefitsLife Insurance Exemption
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Falzone & New York Mutual Fire Insurance

This CPLR article 75 proceeding addresses whether a supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) arbitrator exceeded their authority by not giving preclusive effect to a prior no-fault arbitration award. Petitioner, having secured a no-fault award for a shoulder injury after a car collision, subsequently sought SUM benefits. The SUM arbitrator denied benefits, finding the injury unrelated, contradicting the no-fault decision. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 75 proceeding, arguing collateral estoppel, but the Appellate Division confirmed the SUM award. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reiterating that arbitrators' legal errors, including those concerning collateral estoppel, are generally not subject to judicial review unless they violate strong public policy, are irrational, or exceed explicit limitations on authority.

arbitrationcollateral estoppelres judicataSUM benefitsno-fault benefitsCPLR Article 75judicial reviewarbitrator's authorityappellate reviewcausation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,055 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