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. 2020 NY Slip Op 02346 [182 AD3d 890]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2020

Matter of Schiffer v. Charming Shoppes of Del.

Claimant Sheila Schiffer suffered two work-related back injuries in 2000 and 2007, leading to a permanent partial disability. The employer, Charming Shoppes of Delaware, and its workers' compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). The Workers' Compensation Board discharged the Fund, determining the carrier failed to provide sufficient and timely evidence and that a prior stipulation was legally non-binding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the carrier failed to establish both that the claimant's preexisting impairment hindered her general employability and that her permanent disability was materially and substantially greater due to both injuries.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15(8)Special Disability FundReimbursement ClaimsPreexisting ImpairmentPermanent Partial DisabilityMaterially and Substantially GreaterGeneral EmployabilityTimeliness of EvidenceStipulation EnforceabilityEstoppel
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03117 [171 AD3d 1416]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Matter of Galeano v. International Shoppes

Claimant Ana Galeano sustained a work-related injury in 2000, which was later amended to include consequential injuries. In 2007, she was involved in a non-work-related motor vehicle accident causing overlapping injuries. The carrier later alleged that Galeano violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose the motor vehicle accident and subsequent treatment to her treating physicians and the carrier's consultant, potentially leading to overpayment of medical bills. The Workers' Compensation Board found that Galeano did not violate the law because her permanent partial disability classification and benefit entitlement predated the accident, and the law does not extend penalties to medical benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that any omission by the claimant was not for the purpose of obtaining wage-replacement benefits.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentFraud AllegationSection 114-aMedical BenefitsWage ReplacementAppellate ReviewDisclosure ObligationCausally-Related Injury
References
7
Case No. 06-CV2637
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2012

Spencer v. International Shoppes, Inc.

Plaintiff Arleigh Spencer initiated an action against International Shoppes, Inc. and Michael Halpern, alleging race and age-based discrimination and retaliation. While many discrimination claims were dismissed, claims of retaliatory commencement of litigation under Title VII, NYHRL, and § 1981 remained. Defendants moved for a second summary judgment, contending that their partially successful state court defamation lawsuit against Spencer precluded a finding of retaliatory intent. The Court denied the motion, ruling that the 'well-founded lawsuit' standard from NLRA cases was not applicable to employment discrimination retaliation claims and that, even if it were, Defendants' success on only one of eight claims did not negate the possibility of retaliatory motive, particularly given the timing and high damages sought in the initial state court action.

Retaliation ClaimEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIINew York Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Section 1981State Court LawsuitFrivolous LitigationPretextCausal Connection
References
47
Case No. ADJ669236 (SAC 0346511)
Regular
Apr 20, 2012

LOREDANA ZECCA-VINCIGUERRA vs. CHARMING SHOPPES, INC., dba LANE BRYANT, INC.; GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration/Removal filed by Applicant Loredana Zecca-Vinciguerra. This dismissal was based on a joint letter from the parties indicating they had reached a settlement. The parties explicitly requested the WCAB take no action on the pending petition due to their agreement. The WCAB will allow refiling if their understanding of the settlement is incorrect.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalSettlementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDismissalParties' LetterRe-filedApplicantDefendant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Street Beat Sportswear, Inc. v. National Mobilization Against Sweatshops

This case involves Street Beat, a women’s clothing manufacturer, suing garment factory workers, nonprofit organizations, and their officials for tortious interference with business relationships. Street Beat alleged that defendants falsely claimed the company profited from sweatshop labor, causing retailers Sears and Charming Shoppes to stop buying its goods. Defendants argued the lawsuit constituted a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), intended to retaliate against their efforts to report labor law violations to state and federal agencies. The court determined the suit was a SLAPP suit, materially related to the workers' actions before public agencies. The complaint against the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, and the claims against the remaining defendants were dismissed due to lack of proof for tortious interference and absence of solely malicious intent. Ultimately, the defendants' motions for dismissal were granted, and Street Beat's cross-motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

SLAPP SuitTortious InterferenceBusiness RelationshipsGarment IndustryLabor Law ViolationsAnti-SLAPP StatuteAgency TheorySummary JudgmentDismissal of ComplaintAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2013

Noboa v. International Shoppes, Inc.

Claimant, a sales associate, was injured while being transported home by her employer in a merchandise van during a snowstorm after her shift was unexpectedly terminated. Public transportation was suspended due to the severe weather. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed her claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision and awarded benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the employer assumed responsibility for employee transportation and maintained exclusive control over the conveyance, establishing a clear nexus between the accident and employment. The court referenced several precedents supporting this exception to the general 'going and coming' rule.

Workers' CompensationSnowstorm InjuryEmployer Provided TransportationScope of EmploymentAccident During CommuteAppellate AffirmationBoard DecisionEmployee SafetyNexus to EmploymentCompensable Injury
References
7
Case No. ADJ8212795
Regular
Dec 31, 2013

JENATHANI vs. JENSEN'S MINUTE SHOPPE, ATHEN ADMINISTRATORS

The Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Removal filed by Landmark Medical Management on behalf of a lien claimant. However, construing the petition as a request for reconsideration, the Board granted it. Citing the federal district court's preliminary injunction in *Angelotti Chiropractic v. Baker* regarding the lien activation fee, the Board rescinded the WCJ's order imposing sanctions. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder to Pay SanctionsLabor Code section 5813Labor Code section 4903.06lien activation feeDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedAngelotti Chiropractic v. Bakerpreliminary injunction
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 1997

Claim of D'Accordo v. Spare Wheels & Car Shoppe

Claimant, an automobile salesperson, was injured in an accident while driving an employer's vehicle to the dealership to finalize a sale. The employer permitted salespersons to use demonstrator vehicles and conduct off-premises sales. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the accident occurred within the course of employment, a decision appealed by the employer and its carrier. The court affirmed, citing sufficient evidence that the claimant was engaged in work-related activity, including testimony that the employer encouraged taking vehicles to potential customers' homes and claimant's history of sales to relatives. The court concluded the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile SalesCourse of EmploymentAccidental InjuryDemonstrator VehicleOff-Premises SalesSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEmployer PolicyWork-Related Activity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 1997

Claim of D'Accordo v. Spare Wheels & Car Shoppe of Sayville

A claimant, an automobile salesperson, was injured in an accident while driving an employer-provided vehicle to complete a sale to his brother-in-law. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, a decision challenged by the employer and its insurance carrier. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, citing sufficient evidence that the claimant's activity, though off-schedule, was work-related. This was supported by coworker testimony regarding the employer's encouragement of off-site sales and the claimant's history of sales to family members, establishing a factual basis for the Board's resolution that the activity was reasonable and work-related.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentAutomobile SalesWork-Related ActivityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance CarrierFactual Question
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merriman v. Town of Colonie

Plaintiffs Rybicki and Merriman filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Michael Diaz, Colonie Police Department officers, and Ye Olde Locksmith Shoppe, Inc., alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and state law torts related to the dissolution of an autobody repair partnership. The plaintiffs claimed defendants illegally allowed Michael Diaz access to the shop after the partnership's dissolution and seized property. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that despite Rybicki's attempt to dissolve it, the partnership remained in existence, granting Michael Diaz lawful access to the shop and its contents. Therefore, the police actions did not violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights, nor did the defendants conspire against the plaintiffs or incur municipal liability. The court also dismissed pendent state law claims due to the absence of federal jurisdiction.

Partnership DissolutionCivil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)Fourth Amendment (Search and Seizure)Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process)Summary JudgmentQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityColonie Police DepartmentState Actor DoctrinePendent State Claims
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 10 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