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
Aug 08, 1989

Quinn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found that the claimant was not discriminated against by their employer. The claimant was terminated due to a work-related disability, and subsequently rejected rehire offers from the employer, despite no decrease in salary. When the claimant later sought reemployment, the employer refused. The court found that the claimant failed to prove discrimination or retaliation, and that the employer was under no contractual or legal obligation to rehire the claimant after termination. Therefore, the decision affirming that the employer did not discriminate was upheld.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationRetaliationReinstatementTerminationEmploymentDisabilitySubstantial EvidenceRehireBoard Decision
References
3
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 Staebler v. Chloral Group, Inc.

The claimant, a salesman, sustained a left shoulder injury at work. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially awarded him $16,380 for a 15% schedule loss of use and directed reimbursement to the employer for $9,378.25 in wages. The claimant appealed the reimbursement, arguing he lost no work time. The Board subsequently rescinded the reimbursement award and reopened the case. Upon further proceedings, the Board again found the employer entitled to reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4). The claimant appealed this decision. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, finding that the Administrative Law Judge failed to conduct a fair inquiry into whether the claimant lost time from work, preventing him from testifying adequately on the issue. The employer offered no contradictory evidence to the claimant’s statement that he lost no time from work. The claimant died after filing the appeal, with his executor continuing the case.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjurySchedule Loss of UseReimbursement of WagesAdministrative Law JudgeProcedural ErrorDue Process ViolationRemittalEvidentiary DevelopmentDeceased Claimant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reid v. Coastal Abrasive & Tool Co.

The case involves an appeal from a decision awarding disability benefits to a claimant. The claimant, an inside worker, suffered injuries after slipping and falling on snow and ice on a public sidewalk adjacent to her employer's premises. The employer, as the sole tenant, was contractually responsible for maintaining the sidewalks and removing snow and ice. The Workmen's Compensation Board found that the employer's dominion over the sidewalk area brought the accident within the scope of employment, thus ensuring the claimant's right to safe entry to the building. The court affirmed the decision, with costs awarded to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallSnow and Ice RemovalEmployer ResponsibilitySafe IngressDisability AwardPublic Sidewalk AccidentCourse of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nassar v. Masri Furniture & Merchandise, Inc.

The employer challenged the Workers' Compensation Board's decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for a causal link between the claimant's injury and employment. However, testimony from the claimant and a coworker confirmed the claimant sustained back and neck injuries while lifting furniture for the employer, leading to a cessation of work due to persistent pain. The court emphasized that any testimonial inconsistencies created a credibility matter for the Board to resolve, noting its independence from the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's findings. Crucially, uncontradicted medical evidence corroborated the causal relationship between the workplace injury and the claimant's disability. Consequently, the Board’s decisions were affirmed.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueBoard DecisionMedical EvidenceBack InjuryNeck InjuryLifting FurnitureEmployment Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1998

Claim of Gardner v. Structure Tone of NY, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging asbestosis due to asbestos exposure during employment as an elevator operator at a construction site. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant partially disabled by asbestosis, an occupational disease, and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, primarily disputing the claimant's asbestos exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision after finding sufficient evidence of exposure and asbestosis. On further appeal, the employer argued that asbestosis was not inherent to an elevator operator's job, but the appellate court declined to consider this issue as it was not raised in the administrative appeal to the Board. The court also noted the employer abandoned the exposure issue by not raising it on the current appeal, thus affirming the Board's decision.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsElevator OperatorAppealAdministrative AppealJudicial ReviewPreservation of IssueWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dudas v. Town of Lancaster

The claimant, a laborer, allegedly injured his right ankle on February 28, 2007, after slipping on ice at the employer's Town Hall. Despite ongoing symptoms, the claimant delayed seeking medical treatment and reporting the injury to the employer until June 27, 2007. The employer's workers' compensation carrier initially authorized medical care but later controverted the claim due to conflicting reports regarding the cause of injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim for failure to provide timely notice, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer did not waive the defense of timely notice and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the claim given the claimant's delay in reporting and treatment.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeAnkle InjurySlip and FallEmployer PrejudiceMedical Treatment DelayClaim DisallowanceBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewWork-Related Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Okonski v. Pollio Dairy Products Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in September 1987 and was subsequently paid temporary total disability benefits. Medical evaluations in December 1987 and January 1988 indicated that the claimant had a continuing partial disability but could perform light duty work, which the employer offered. The employer contended that the claimant's loss of wages after January 18, 1988, was due to her failure to accept this light duty offer, constituting a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that the claimant did not voluntarily leave the labor market, finding her actions, including her initial reluctance to work the night shift due to its impact on her daughter's well-being and her attempts to contact the employer for alternative arrangements, to be reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to overturn its findings.

Workers Compensation AppealLight Duty EmploymentVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketPartial DisabilityWage LossEmployer OfferReasonableness of RefusalNight ShiftDaughter's Well-beingHuman Resources Manager
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2010

Claim of Gardner v. Triple R Transport, Inc.

The claimant, a truck driver, was injured in 1999 while working for the employer. The employer's workers' compensation carrier contested the existence of an employer-employee relationship and, subsequently, the calculation of the claimant's average weekly wage. The Workers' Compensation Board determined there was an employer-employee relationship and set the average weekly wage based on the claimant's gross income. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the wage should be based on net income after employment-related tax deductions. The court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board failed to review the claimant's tax deductions or explain its deviation from prior precedent regarding necessary expenses. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageGross IncomeNet IncomeTax DeductionsEmployer-Employee RelationshipRemittalFactual DeterminationPrecedentTruck Driver
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1979

Gessino v. D'Andraia

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a decision finding that a claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The claimant sustained an injury while assisting the employer’s brother, under the belief that these activities were at the implied request and for the benefit of the employer. The Board concluded that based on credible evidence and the claimant's testimony, the injury constituted an accidental injury within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryBoard DecisionClaimant BeliefEmployer BenefitSubstantial EvidenceAppeal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 18,808 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