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 07002 [188 AD3d 1524]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Matter of Walczak v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

Claimant Marian Walczak, an arborist, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that deemed his claim for occupational hearing loss untimely. Walczak worked for Asplundh Tree Expert Co. from 1998 to 2006 and filed his claim in 2017, listing the onset of hearing loss as December 27, 2006. The Board found the claim time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, asserting that Walczak knew or should have known of his hearing loss and its probable work-related cause by January 19, 2012, given his testimony and medical records. The Appellate Division affirmed, emphasizing that specialized medical knowledge is not required to trigger the 90-day limitations period under Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb, and deference is given to the Board's findings of fact and credibility assessments.

Occupational Hearing LossTime-Barred ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bbStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementKnowledge of DiseaseMedical Diagnosis Not RequiredAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1981

Claim of Young v. Western Electric Co.

The claimant was injured while helping co-employees in the employer's parking lot and subsequently filed for compensation benefits. A personal injury action against his co-employees was pending. Initially, the referee established accident, notice, and causal relationship for the left leg and closed the case pending the outcome of the third-party action. The claimant appealed this decision, raising a serious question as to whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, but the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the referee's decision without taking testimony on this crucial issue. Citing judicial precedent, the court clarified that the board is not arbitrary in denying a request to withhold determination pending a civil action, as the question of employment course must first be decided by the board. However, due to the lack of testimony and a developed record regarding whether the accident occurred in the course of employment, the matter was reversed and remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionCourse of EmploymentAccident Notice Causal RelationshipRemittalBoard DecisionJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionMixed Questions of Fact and LawSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1999

Claim of Wilson v. Reddy Construction Co.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on January 27, 1999. The Board had ruled that the death of the claimant's decedent was not causally related to his employment, thereby denying her claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. The decedent, a shop supervisor and diesel mechanic, suffered a fatal myocardial infarction on April 22, 1994. The claimant contended that the death resulted from stressful and strenuous work activities, invoking the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1). However, the Board found that the employer successfully rebutted this presumption with evidence indicating the death was solely due to the decedent's significant preexisting coronary risk factors. The court affirmed the Board's decision, highlighting the employer's consulting cardiologist's testimony that the myocardial infarction was caused exclusively by preexisting conditions like heavy smoking and family history, unrelated to employment activity. Furthermore, a co-worker testified that the decedent had not been assigned strenuous tasks and was doing paperwork on the day of his death.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsMyocardial InfarctionCausationEmployment-Related DeathPreexisting ConditionsPresumption of CompensabilityMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Rebuttal
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06039 [242 AD3d 677]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2025

Rosario v. Gentry Tenants Co-op

Plaintiff Fransico Rosario was injured while transporting a heavy hot water tank up stairs using a hand truck. He alleged that a co-worker released their handle, causing the tank to shift and momentarily pin him. However, other co-workers provided conflicting accounts, with some denying the incident or stating plaintiff only lost his footing, and one even claiming plaintiff offered money for favorable testimony. These discrepancies created issues of fact and credibility concerning whether the tank was properly secured, if gravitational forces caused the injury, and if plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that triable issues remained.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawSafe Place to WorkConflicting Witness AccountsCredibility IssueGravitational ForceProximate CauseHand Truck AccidentWater TankAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 1979

Wm. Chalson & Co. v. Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond & Watchcase Workers Union Local No. 1

The plaintiff, Wm. Chalson & Co., Inc., sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond & Watchcase Workers Union Local No. 1 to prevent arbitration. Chalson argued it was not bound by a collective bargaining agreement signed on March 21, 1979, as it had unilaterally withdrawn from the multi-employer bargaining unit on March 16, 1979, citing an alleged impasse in negotiations. The Union contended that Chalson's withdrawal was ineffective and sought to compel arbitration under the new agreement. The court determined that the issue of whether Chalson had a duty to arbitrate should be decided by the court, not an arbitrator. Although the court assumed Chalson's withdrawal was an unjustified unfair labor practice due to a lack of actual impasse, it concluded that Chalson's agency with the Association was terminated. Therefore, the Association lacked authority to bind Chalson to the new agreement. Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff, permanently enjoining arbitration between the parties under the March 21, 1979 contract, without prejudice to the NLRB's statutory jurisdiction.

Labor disputecollective bargainingarbitrationcontract terminationmulti-employer bargainingunfair labor practicedeclaratory judgmentinjunctive reliefagency lawNLRB jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00606 [191 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Pisarski v. Accurate Plumbing & Heating Co.

Claimant Michael Pisarski established a workers' compensation claim for occupational bilateral knee and shoulder injuries after retiring as a union plumber. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately set the date of disablement as July 12, 2016, and a Worker's Compensation Law Judge ruled Norguard Insurance Company, which covered the employer during Pisarski's last employment, was the liable carrier, as no active policy was found on the disablement date. Norguard appealed, distinguishing its case from Matter of Cammarata, where the employer had ceased business. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board erred by not determining the business status of Accurate Plumbing and Heating Co. on the date of disablement. This determination is crucial to establish whether Accurate Plumbing was required to maintain an insurance policy or if the Uninsured Employers Fund should be responsible. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDate of DisablementInsurance Carrier LiabilityUninsured Employers FundAppellate ReviewRemittalBusiness Status DeterminationPolicy CoverageKnee Injury
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 24,750 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