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

Claim of Schmeiser v. Wnuk

The claimant sustained an injury during her employment with an uninsured employer. The central legal question was whether her employment constituted 'covered employment' under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, particularly concerning the definition of a 'domestic worker' in section 3 (subd. 1, group 12). The employer contended the claimant was a governess and thus not a domestic worker. However, the claimant testified to regularly performing household duties such as cooking, washing dishes, and cleaning, presenting a question of fact. The Workmen’s Compensation Board resolved this factual dispute in favor of the claimant, finding her employment to be covered. The appeal from this decision and award was unanimously affirmed, with the court finding no prejudice to the appellant.

Workers' CompensationCovered EmploymentDomestic WorkerHouseworkUninsured EmployerAppealAffirmationGovernessQuestion of FactEmployment Definition
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lesch v. Wile

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed May 24, 2000, which found the claimant’s application for workers’ compensation benefits to be timely. The claimant filed a claim in June 1997 for carpal tunnel syndrome, an occupational disease. The employer and its carrier disputed the claim’s timeliness, arguing that the claimant’s symptoms dated back to 1989. However, the claimant testified that the pain experienced in 1996 was different from earlier symptoms and that she did not receive a definitive diagnosis until June 30, 1997. A treating orthopedist supported this, stating that the 1996 symptoms were unrelated to previous injuries. The Board credited the claimant's testimony, setting the date of disablement as June 30, 1997, and its decision was ultimately affirmed.

occupational diseasecarpal tunnel syndrometimeliness of claimdate of disablementWorkers' Compensation Boardappellate reviewmedical evidencetreating physiciandefinitive diagnosisstatutory interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Augustine

This case involves an appeal by the Industrial Commissioner from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that the claimant, a full-time student at the University of Buffalo working as a janitor, was entitled to unemployment insurance credit. The claimant attended university from approximately 9:30 A.M. to 2:20 P.M. daily, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree to qualify for law school, and worked as a janitor from 4:30 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. five days a week. The central question was whether his janitorial work fell under the "Day student" exception in Labor Law § 511(9), which excludes certain part-time student employment from the definition of "employment" for unemployment insurance purposes. Citing precedents like *Matter of Renee (Gorsi)* and *Matter of Moslcowitz (Gorsi)*, the court concluded that the claimant's work fit the statutory exception, viewing it as a temporary job subordinate to his education rather than a permanent livelihood. Consequently, the court unanimously reversed the Appeal Board's decision and reinstated the Industrial Commissioner's initial determination.

Unemployment InsuranceStudent EmploymentLabor Law ExceptionPart-time WorkAppeal BoardJudicial ReviewEducational PursuitTemporary EmploymentStatutory InterpretationJanitor
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kellish v. Kellish Tire Sales, Inc.

The claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1999, applied for workers' compensation benefits in 2001. The Workers' Compensation Board initially set his average weekly wage at $126, which was based on his part-time employment where he worked one day a week and received $126 plus health insurance. The claimant appealed, arguing that his average weekly wage should be calculated under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3) and that health insurance payments should be included. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the initial finding. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited his work availability. The court also held that health insurance payments are not part of the definition of wages under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (9).

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WagePart-time EmploymentVoluntary LimitationHealth InsuranceWage CalculationAppellate ReviewNew York LawStatutory InterpretationWorkers’ Compensation Law § 14
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Sweet

A claimant, formerly a sewage treatment worker for a municipality, left his job and moved to Hawaii after receiving a conditional job offer at a tropical fish farm and his girlfriend's relocation there. Upon arrival, he discovered the position was no longer available. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, determining he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant failed to verify the job offer before moving and had primarily relocated for personal reasons without definite employment.

Unemployment benefitsVoluntary quitGood cause for leavingJob availabilityRelocation for personal reasonsDisqualification for benefitsAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceMunicipality employmentHawaii job offer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

Claimant filed a disability benefits claim for a non-work-related back condition. After an extended absence of 40 days, her employment was terminated by the employer, who cited her doctor's inability to provide a definitive return-to-work date. Claimant subsequently filed a discrimination complaint, alleging her discharge violated Workers' Compensation Law sections 120 and 241, which prohibit employer retaliation for claiming benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the employer violated the applicable law by terminating her employment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer's stated reason for termination was insufficient to distinguish it from a prohibited discriminatory discharge, and that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

DiscriminationRetaliationDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawTermination of EmploymentBack ConditionAbsence from WorkSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 531672
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2021

Matter of Maldonado v. Doria, Inc.

Claimant Cesar Maldonado sustained a left ankle injury at work, which subsequently led to a causally-related pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Following further proceedings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board amended the claim to include major depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and cardiac arrest. The employer and its carrier appealed the inclusion of cardiac arrest, arguing a narrow definition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial medical evidence, including testimony from pulmonologists Nathan Rothman and Ali Eray Guy, supported the causal relationship between the cardiac arrest and the initial injury, rejecting the carrier's definitional arguments.

Ankle InjuryPulmonary EmbolismDeep Vein ThrombosisCardiac ArrestCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonySyncopal EpisodesOccupational Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Hopkins v. Emcor Group, Inc.

Claimant suffered serious injuries after falling from a scissors lift at work. His claim for workers’ compensation benefits was controverted by the employer and its carrier, who argued the fall was caused by a seizure from substance or alcohol withdrawal, not work-related. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found the injury to be work-related. On appeal, the carrier presented testimony from a neurologist who could only state a seizure was 'likely,' and eyewitnesses could not definitively rule out the claimant becoming entangled in hoses. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that the carrier's evidence was speculative and insufficient to rebut the Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 presumption of compensability.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising out of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityScissors Lift FallSeizureSubstance Abuse WithdrawalAlcohol WithdrawalMedical Testimony
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2003

Cuevas v. Americorps

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found a claimant's workers' compensation claim was not preempted by federal law. The claimant, a participant in the Americorps program through the Red Hook Public Safety Corps, sustained back and neck injuries while performing community gardening. The Workers' Compensation Board determined she was a general employee of the Fund for the City of New York, Inc. (FCNY) and a special employee of Americorps. FCNY and its carriers appealed, arguing that 42 USC § 12511 explicitly preempts state law by stating that Americorps participants are not employees for the purposes of that subchapter. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the federal statute's definition of 'participant' as 'not an employee' was limited to the purposes of the federal subchapter and did not dictate employee status for state workers' compensation benefits. The court further noted that 42 USC § 12594 (b) contemplates states treating participants as employees for workers' compensation purposes, reinforcing the lack of preemptive intent.

Federal preemptionAmericorps programEmployment status determinationStatutory interpretationFund for the City of New YorkCommunity service injuryWorkers' Compensation Board appealAppellate review42 USC 1251142 USC 12594
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Leeber v. LILCO

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant exposed to asbestos during employment with LILCO and its successor, resulting in occupational asbestosis and pleural disease. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claimant permanently partially disabled and that his retirement, though incentivized, was partly due to his disability, thus not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The Board affirmed the disability finding but denied continued compensation after the claimant testified he had not sought post-retirement work. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Board erred by discontinuing awards solely based on the claimant's failure to seek employment post-retirement, as proof that a claimant has not sought work does not, by itself, defeat the inference that reduced earning capacity is due to disability. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's three-step analysis for evaluating voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Occupational AsbestosisPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketReduced Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation AppealAppellate ReversalRemittalBurden of ProofDisability RetirementPost-Retirement Employment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 7,543 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