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. ADJ1560142 (SFO 0418414) ADJ2358122 (SFO 0500361)
Regular
Sep 13, 2010

GENNADY LIUBIMSKY vs. SHERATON FISHERMAN'S WHARF, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant alleging back injury from a 1995 specific incident and a cumulative trauma (CT) ending in 2006. The Appeals Board rescinded the previous award because unresolved issues remained, including the date of CT injury, apportionment between multiple potential injuries, and the applicable permanent disability rating schedule. Zurich, the current carrier, sought reconsideration arguing the CT claim was time-barred. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify these complex issues and ensure proper application of apportionment law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGennady LiubimskySheraton Fisherman's WharfZurich American Insurance CompanyADJ1560142ADJ2358122Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationCumulative TraumaStatute of LimitationsPetition to Reopen
References
4
Case No. ADJ12138014 ADJ10965293
Regular
Jan 21, 2020

DONALD WRIGHT vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

The WCAB denied Defendant Federal Express Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that applicant Donald Wright is entitled to a separate Agreed Medical Evaluator or Qualified Medical Examiner for his cumulative trauma (CT) claim. Defendant argued applicant waived this right by not filing a claim form for the CT claim, citing *Navarro v. City of Montebello*. However, the Board found that while the initial finding of injury AOE/COE was a threshold issue, the entitlement to a separate QME for the CT claim was interlocutory. As Defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, removal was denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDONALD WRIGHTFEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATIONADJ12138014ADJ10965293Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJcumulative trauma (CT) claimpanel qualified medical evaluator (QME)
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1986

Claim of Grandinetti v. Syracuse University

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision finding a claimant totally industrially disabled following a compensable back injury in 1982. The self-insured employer challenged this determination, asserting the claimant was only partially disabled and that his failure to complete a rehabilitation program and refusal to undergo a myelogram should preclude a total disability finding. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing abundant medical evidence supporting total disability, the claimant’s age, work experience, and limited education. The court also found the claimant’s refusal of a myelogram and potential laminectomy to be reasonable given the associated dangers and his family's adverse experiences.

Industrial DisabilityBack Injury CompensationMedical Treatment RefusalVocational RehabilitationEmployer LiabilityDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewMedical Expert OpinionPre-existing InjurySpinal Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board ruled that the claimant's cervical spine injury claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 because it was filed more than two years after the 2010 work-related accident, which initially caused back and leg injuries. Although the claimant argued that a carrier's payment for a 2010 CT scan constituted an advance payment of compensation, the court disagreed, noting the CT scan did not reveal neck abnormalities at the time and subsequent treatment focused on other injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the neck injury claim was untimely.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimNeck InjuryBack InjuryAdvance Payment of CompensationIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate DivisionNew YorkWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02917 [217 AD3d 1031]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

Matter of Saporito v. Office of Ct. Admin.

Claimant Barbara Saporito, a court reporter, sustained a work-related back injury in March 2004. Her workers' compensation claim was established in December 2011. She sought additional awards for lost time after being terminated from her job in December 2006 and subsequently ceasing freelance work. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ's award of benefits, finding that her separation from employment and continued unemployment were voluntary and not causally related to her disability due to inconsistencies in her testimony and gaps in medical evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that a claimant who voluntarily withdraws from the labor market is not entitled to benefits unless the disability caused or contributed to the withdrawal, a finding supported by substantial evidence.

Voluntary withdrawalLabor market attachmentCausally-related wage lossMedical evidence sufficiencyCredibility assessmentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewLumbar fusion injuryTemporary total disabilityEmployment termination
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06676 [200 AD3d 655]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2021

Guaman v. 178 Ct. St., LLC

The plaintiff, Fausto Guaman, allegedly sustained personal injuries after falling through an uncovered stairwell opening at a construction site. He initiated an action against the property owner, 178 Court Street, LLC, and the general contractor, Dynatec Contracting, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. Both parties moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court largely denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's order, concluding that triable issues of fact persisted regarding the provision of adequate safety devices, compliance with Industrial Code provisions, and Dynatec's control and notice of the hazardous conditions at the worksite.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactSafety DevicesDangerous Condition
References
16
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 02458 [126 AD3d 949]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2015

Lombardo v. Tag Court Square, LLC

Philip Lombardo was injured in a slip and fall incident at a construction site owned by Tag Court Square, LLC. He, along with his wife, sued the owner, construction managers, and Geiger Construction Company, Inc. (hired for waterproofing). The claims included common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) violations. The owner and construction managers also filed a third-party action against Lombardo's employer, Spectrum Painting Contractors, seeking indemnification. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment motions by both Geiger and Spectrum. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting Geiger's motion to dismiss the Labor Law claims due to lack of supervisory control, but denied it for common-law negligence, citing triable issues of fact about Geiger creating a dangerous condition. The Appellate Division also fully granted Spectrum's motion, dismissing the third-party complaint entirely, finding the indemnification clause inapplicable and no 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Construction site accidentSlip and fallCommon-law negligenceLabor Law violationsSummary judgment motionContractual indemnificationCommon-law indemnificationThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation Law Section 11Grave injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2025

Matter of Peralta v. Supreme Ct., 1st Jud. Dept.

Miosotis Peralta, a court officer, sustained injuries in November 2021 and was out of work, during which her employer paid her salary. She filed a workers' compensation claim, and a WCLJ established the claim and awarded temporary disability benefits, directing the employer's carrier to continue payments while the employer received credit for wages paid. A WCLJ later denied her attorney's fee request, but the Workers' Compensation Board modified this by granting a $10,422.27 fee as a lien on reimbursement. The carrier appealed, arguing against the fee's applicability under Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (2) (b) due to employer reimbursement and the nature of the awards. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that counsel was entitled to the fee regardless of whether the awards were for employer reimbursement, as the statute applies to increases in compensation "awarded or paid" for previous periods.

Counsel FeesWorkers' Compensation Law § 24Employer ReimbursementTemporary DisabilityLien on CompensationStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionClaimant Attorney FeesWage Payments Credit
References
14
Case No. ADJ7403688
Regular
Jan 12, 2016

RUFINA RODRIGUEZ vs. HOLIDAY INN, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Rufina Rodriguez's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the jurisdictional 25-day deadline for filing after the WCJ's July 30, 2013 order. The WCAB emphasized that a petition must be *received* by the board within the time limit, not just mailed. Therefore, the Board lacked authority to consider the merits of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportMail ServiceTime Limit ExtensionJurisdictionalProof of MailingNotice of Decision
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02237
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

Matter of Liotta v. New York State Unified Ct. Sys.

Claimant, a senior court officer, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained during the World Trade Center (WTC) rescue, recovery, and cleanup operations on September 11, 2001. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, denying the claim on the grounds that he was not a participant in the operations. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the decision, noting that Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A should be liberally construed for WTC-related claims. The court found that the claimant's actions of clearing routes for emergency vehicles within the statutorily defined WTC site had a tangible connection to rescue efforts. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's determination, concluding it lacked substantial evidence, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsWorld Trade Center9/11 AttacksRescue OperationsRecovery OperationsCleanup OperationsEligibility CriteriaStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 39 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