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
Feb 20, 2002

Anderson v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed his CPLR article 78 proceeding. The proceeding contested the termination of his employment by respondent Workers' Compensation Board. The Board's Chair directed respondent Peter J. Molinaro to terminate petitioner's employment while out of state. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the Chair has the authority to appoint and remove employees under Workers' Compensation Law § 149 and that the delegation order under Workers’ Compensation Law § 152 did not divest him of this authority. The Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the Chair's request for Molinaro to inform petitioner of the termination did not alter the decision's origination and was within the Chair's power.

Employment TerminationWorkers' Compensation BoardDelegation of AuthorityJudicial ReviewPublic Officer AuthorityAdministrative LawNew York LawAppeal DecisionAgency ActionChairperson Authority
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02158 [215 AD3d 1205]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Soler v. Donato, Inc.

The claimant, Wilfredo Soler, suffered work-related back and hip injuries in August 2017. Following a denial by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge in August 2021 for lumbar fusion surgery, the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board initially authorized the surgery in November 2021. However, this authorization was subsequently rescinded by the Chair due to the prior denial on identical medical evidence. The Workers' Compensation Board then denied Soler's application for review of the Chair's rescission, deeming it outside its scope of review. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that orders of the Chair are not subject to review by the Board under Workers' Compensation Law § 23.

Lumbar fusion surgeryAuthorization for treatmentRescission of orderBoard reviewAppellate DivisionScope of reviewTreating physicianEmployerInsurance carrierMedical evidence
References
3
Case No. 535327
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Wilfredo Soler

Wilfredo Soler appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying his request for full Board review. Soler's claim for work-related injuries was established, and he was initially denied authorization for lumbar fusion surgery by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). Although the Chair of the WCB later granted the request, this order was subsequently rescinded because the WCLJ had already denied the same request based on identical medical evidence. The WCB denied Soler's application for review, asserting that a Chair's order falls outside its scope of review under Workers' Compensation Law § 23. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Chair's orders are not subject to Board review.

Workers' CompensationAppealBoard ReviewMedical AuthorizationLumbar Fusion SurgeryRescission OrderScope of ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial ReviewAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1980

Claim of Zylbergleit v. Irving Rubber & Metal Co.

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had ruled that the claimant, suffering from a compensable heart condition, should be provided with an electric elevator chair for access to their apartment. The central issue on appeal was whether the disability originated from a myocardial infarction in 1969. The case was reopened in 1976 after a medical report confirmed a coronary infarction at the time of the 1969 injury, leading to a continuing disability. The appellate court found substantial medical evidence supporting the causal relationship and the necessity for the elevator chair, ultimately affirming the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionHeart ConditionDisability BenefitsElevator ChairMedical EvidenceCausal ConnectionCase ReopeningAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salvania v. University of Rochester

Plaintiff commenced an action against Strong Memorial Hospital for injuries sustained from a fall involving a defective chair. The Supreme Court denied in part the hospital's motion for summary judgment, and this decision was appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, rejecting the defendant's arguments. Defendant contended that plaintiff introduced a new theory of liability regarding a defective footrest and that it lacked constructive notice of the chair's condition. The court found that the original complaint sufficiently covered the footrest theory and that the defendant failed to prove adequate inspection practices to negate constructive notice.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeDefective ConditionPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewDiscoveryPleading RequirementsAffirmed Decision
References
9
Case No. CA 15-01266
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2016

SALVANIA, LAURA v. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER

Plaintiff Laura Salvania sued the University of Rochester for injuries sustained from a fall involving a faulty chair at Strong Memorial Hospital. The Supreme Court denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant appealed, arguing the plaintiff speculated about the cause of the fall and introduced a new theory of liability regarding a defective footrest. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff's complaint and bill of particulars sufficiently encompassed the footrest theory and that the defendant was not surprised. Additionally, the court concluded that the defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it lacked constructive notice of the defective chair.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDefective ChairConstructive NoticeAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryFall AccidentHospital LiabilityMonroe County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 1995

Leonard v. Unisys Corp.

Linda M. Leonard suffered severe back injuries in 1987 due to a defective office chair, leading to a lawsuit against her employer (Department of Motor Vehicles) and the chair's sellers/manufacturers (Human Factor Technologies, Inc., Burroughs Corporation, Standard Register Company, and Unisys Corporation). The lawsuit alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. A jury found certain defendants strictly liable and apportioned fault, awarding significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium to Leonard and her husband. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order and judgment, upholding the jury's verdict, the damage awards, and the denial of indemnification claims between defendants, while rejecting challenges to jury instructions and evidentiary rulings.

Products liabilityBreach of warrantyNegligenceIndemnification claimLoss of consortium damagesPain and suffering awardJury verdict reviewApportionment of liabilitySuccessor corporation liabilityDefective chair
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mazzarella v. Cutting

The employer, Charles Cutting, and his workers' compensation carrier appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had denied the carrier's request for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, citing the carrier's failure to file the prescribed form C-251.3 prior to the award of compensation. The carrier argued that neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) nor § 15 (8) (Z) explicitly required this specific form and that their timely filing of form C-251.2 provided notice to the Fund. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that 12 NYCRR 300.5 (e) mandates claims for reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) to be filed on a chair-prescribed form, which was C-251.3. The court reiterated the Board Chair’s authority to issue regulations and forms, and the Board’s right to insist on strict adherence to these requirements, deeming the argument regarding lack of prejudice to the Fund irrelevant.

Workers' Compensation LawReimbursementSpecial Disability FundForm C-251.3Form C-251.2Regulation AdherenceBoard Chair AuthorityAppellate DivisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier Claims
References
3
Case No. ADJ9651517
Regular
Nov 20, 2015

MERARI GORDILLO vs. ARCADIA CHAIR COMPANY, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal to prevent substantial prejudice and irreparable harm. The defendant argued that proceeding to trial without a crucial Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) report would deny them due process. Consequently, the Board converted the scheduled trial date to a Mandatory Settlement Conference and kept discovery open until its completion. This decision aims to ensure a more informed resolution by allowing parties to consider the PQME's findings.

Petition for RemovalPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQME reportMandatory Settlement Conferencesubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmdue processindustrial injuryDeclaration of Readiness to Proceedongoing discovery
References
2
Case No. ADJ2361172
Regular
Oct 02, 2009

Maximo Amaya vs. PAUSTINO LIMON'S CHAIR FACTORY, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

The WCAB dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration and denied the petition for removal, finding that the WCJ's decision was not a final order.

AOE/COEdeferred issuespetition for reconsiderationpetition for removalfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilitymedical evidencesubstantial evidenceindustrial injury
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 37 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