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

Park v. City of New York

In a personal injury action arising from a construction site accident, the Supreme Court, New York County, initially reduced a jury's award for past pain and suffering from $1,500,000 to $600,000. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified by the Appellate Division. The appellate court further directed a new trial on future pain and suffering unless the plaintiff agreed to a reduction of the award from $800,000 to $400,000. The decision was based on a comparison to similar cases involving comminuted elbow/arm fractures, multiple surgeries, and permanent limitations, while noting the plaintiff's non-dominant wrist fracture added little value as it resolved without surgery.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentDamagesPain and SufferingJury Award ReductionAppellate ReviewFractureElbow InjuryWrist InjuryStipulation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2004

In re the Claim of Teitelbaum

This case concerns an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The claimant, an account executive for an employer whose products were sold at airport duty-free shops, was terminated after September 11, 2001, due to business decline. She applied for extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) for displaced airline-related workers. Although initially granted by an Administrative Law Judge, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, finding the employer was neither a supplier nor an upstream producer for an airline. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the connection between the employer's products and the airline industry was too tenuous to qualify the claimant for extended benefits under TEUC-A, and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended BenefitsTEUC-ADisplaced WorkersAirline IndustrySupplier DefinitionEligibilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 1983

People v. Balls

The defendant, charged with manslaughter in the second degree, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide for the death of his seven-week-old daughter. The primary issue on appeal was whether the prosecutor's summation comments regarding the defendant's prearrest silence constituted reversible error. The court found these comments to be a permissible 'response in kind' to the defense's characterization of the defendant's behavior and deemed them harmless error, citing overwhelming evidence of guilt, including medical testimony of a comminuted skull fracture. The judgment was affirmed, and the imposed sentence of 1 1/3 to 4 years imprisonment was upheld.

Criminally Negligent HomicideManslaughter Second DegreeInfant DeathFractured SkullCircumstantial EvidenceProsecutorial MisconductPre-arrest SilenceHarmless ErrorSufficiency of EvidenceMedical Expert Testimony
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2011

Alfonso v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old office worker, sustained a comminuted intraarticular fracture of the distal radial metaphysis of her right wrist and a cervical herniated disc after being struck by a truck owned by the Transit Authority. After a failed closed reduction, she underwent open reduction surgery with internal fixation and extensive physical therapy, resulting in reduced range of motion, continued pain, and progressive arthritis. A jury awarded the plaintiff $450,000 for past pain and suffering and $800,000 for future pain and suffering. The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed this judgment, determining that the awards did not materially deviate from reasonable compensation.

personal injurymotor vehicle accidentfracturewrist injuryneck injuryshoulder injurypain and sufferingjury verdictaffirmationnegligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Britvan v. Plaza at Latham, L. L. C.

Plaintiff Grigory Britvan suffered a comminuted fracture of his right heel after falling from a scaffold at a construction site. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on liability. During the trial, the court precluded a psychologist's testimony regarding Britvan's anxiety disorder because the expert could not separate the psychological impact of the accident from the employer's failure to provide workers' compensation insurance. The jury awarded Britvan $20,000 for past pain and suffering, $5,000 for future pain and suffering, and his wife $2,500 for a derivative claim. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the awards were inadequate and the preclusion of testimony was erroneous. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the awards reasonable and the preclusion of expert testimony proper.

Personal injuryScaffold accidentHeel fracturePsychological damagesExpert testimony preclusionWorkers' compensationDamages awardJury verdictAppellate review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownstein v. LeCroy Corp.

This opinion addresses a third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The third-party defendant, plaintiff's employer, argued that the third-party complaint was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 because the plaintiff had not sustained a "grave injury." The court reviewed the statutory definition of "grave injury" following the 1996 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Law, which aimed to repeal Dole v Dow Chem. Co. liability except in such cases. It determined that the plaintiff's alleged injuries, a displaced wrist fracture with 35% loss of use, did not meet the statutory requirement of "permanent and total" loss of use. Consequently, the court granted the third-party defendant's motion and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Summary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Third-Party ActionEmployer ImmunityStatutory ConstructionDole Liability RepealPersonal Injury ClaimsWrist Fracture InjuryLoss of Use
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2003

Baez v. New York City Transit Authority

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered a judgment on or about July 16, 2003, upholding a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff $600,000 for past pain and suffering and $380,000 for future pain and suffering. This judgment also brought up for review an order from November 26, 2002, which denied the defendants' motion to deem the damages verdict excessive. The plaintiff, a 56-year-old home-health-aide, sustained a severe comminuted midshaft humeral fracture in her right arm, requiring multiple surgeries including rod and plate placements, and extensive physical therapy. Despite healing, she was left with limited forearm rotation, numbness, hand weakness, and three large keloid scars. The court unanimously affirmed the damages awards, finding them to be reasonable compensation under the circumstances, referencing CPLR 5501 [c] and Martinez v Gouverneur Gardens Hous. Corp.

Humeral fracturePain and sufferingDamages awardJury verdictAppellate affirmationSurgical interventionPhysical therapyKeloid scarsLimited range of motionMedical hardware
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Chautauqua v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Local 1000

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) sought arbitration regarding layoffs and displacement rights under its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the County of Chautauqua. The County argued that the CBA's provisions on seniority-based layoffs and interdepartmental displacement conflicted with Civil Service Law § 80, asserting these issues were non-arbitrable due to public policy. After conflicting lower court decisions, the Court of Appeals held that the CBA's layoff provision, which prioritized seniority over the employer's prerogative to determine staffing needs, violated public policy and was thus not arbitrable. However, the court found no explicit statutory or public policy prohibition against interdepartmental displacement rights, allowing arbitration on that specific grievance. Consequently, the Appellate Division's order was modified, staying arbitration for the layoff grievance but compelling it for the displacement rights grievance.

Collective Bargaining AgreementLayoffsDisplacement RightsCivil Service Law § 80ArbitrabilityPublic Policy ExceptionManagement PrerogativeSeniority RightsInterdepartmental BumpingTaylor Law
References
22
Case No. ADJ12427109
Regular
Apr 04, 2023

RICHARD ADAMS vs. MR. PLASTICS, INC., EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award finding an industrial injury to the applicant's right hand. The applicant claimed a fracture occurred while operating a machine, though medical records initially focused on a non-industrial injury from a ladder. Crucially, a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) opined the fracture was consistent with the applicant's described work mechanism. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning which prioritized the QME's opinion and medical records documenting the fracture prior to termination, over the defendant's arguments regarding proof of injury and temporary disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilityMachine OperatorRight Hand InjuryScaphoid FractureAOE/COEContemporaneous Medical RecordsQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Dr. Roland
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenthal v. City of New York

This CPLR article 78 proceeding concerns a challenge by union leaders and Parks Department employees (petitioners) against the City of New York's Work Experience Program (WEP). Petitioners alleged that WEP participants displaced civil service employees in the Parks Department, violating antidisplacement provisions of Social Services Law § 336-c (2) (e). The court, guided by a prior Appellate Division ruling requiring an individualized inquiry, examined petitioners' claims regarding displacement, workforce reduction, substantial performance of work, and loss of bargaining unit positions. Petitioners failed to provide specific evidence of individual employees being displaced or the required particularity for their claims. Consequently, the court found that petitioners did not prove a violation of the Social Services Law, leading to the denial of the petition and dismissal of the proceeding.

Work Experience ProgramAntidisplacement LawPublic AssistanceSocial Services LawCPLR Article 78Union RightsParks DepartmentCivil ServiceWorkfareWelfare Reform
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 232 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