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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed an appeal filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program against the Commissioner of Labor. The appeal sought to challenge a decision by the Industrial Board of Appeals regarding a minimum wage order for the building service industry. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to properly file a notice of appeal with the court of original instance, which was the Industrial Board of Appeals, not the Appellate Division. Additionally, the petitioner failed to timely and correctly serve the notice of appeal on the respondent's counsel at the designated address. Consequently, due to the complete failure to comply with CPLR 5515, the appeal was dismissed.

JurisdictionAppeal ProcedureService of ProcessAppellate DivisionIndustrial Board of AppealsMinimum WageLabor LawCPLRNew York CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1976

In re the Claim of Phelosof

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Industrial Commissioner's determination that the claimant was ineligible for benefits under the Federal Special Unemployment Assistance Program (SUA). The claimant, who was terminated from employment by Monroe County, was receiving benefits under the New York State Labor Law based on prior covered employment. The Board denied SUA benefits, reasoning that eligibility for State benefits precluded eligibility for SUA, as the Federal program is intended for those not otherwise eligible for unemployment allowances under any other law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that SUA is not a substitute for minimum wage law or an economic floor, and eligibility under State law disqualifies one from SUA benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsFederal Special Unemployment Assistance ProgramEligibility CriteriaNew York State Labor LawCovered EmploymentUncovered EmploymentUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardIndustrial CommissionerAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gooshaw v. Wing

A disabled adult, relying on SSI and workers' compensation, relocated his mobile home to an undeveloped plot in Cortland County after eviction, lacking essential utilities. Faced with building code violations, he sought emergency assistance from the Cortland County Department of Social Services (DSS) for property improvements. DSS denied his application, recommending alternative housing, a decision affirmed by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which reasoned that his needs were foreseeable and not a sudden catastrophe. The court upheld this denial, confirming that the requested capital improvements fell outside the scope of emergency assistance for adults (EAA), which is intended for unforeseen events. It was concluded that the application was correctly assessed under emergency safety net assistance, which permits considering cost-effective alternatives, and the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Emergency AssistanceDisabled AdultSupplemental Security IncomeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMobile HomeBuilding Code ViolationsCapital ImprovementsSocial Services LawForeseeabilityCatastrophic Emergency
References
2
Case No. 01-12-00581-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Newspaper Holdings, Inc., Integracare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, LTD, Crazy Hotel Assisted Living GP, LLC, Leisure Life Senior Apartment Housing II, LTD, and Charles v. Miller, Jr.

This case is an appeal from the denial of motions to dismiss a defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference lawsuit. Appellants, Newspaper Holdings, Inc., IntegraCare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson, published articles detailing regulatory issues and investigations at Crazy Hotel Assisted Living facility and its owner, Charles Miller. They sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their communications were protected free speech on matters of public concern. The appellate court found it had jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Appellants met the TCPA burden, and that Appellees failed to provide prima facie evidence for their claims. The court also determined the commercial speech exemption to the TCPA did not apply, remanding the case for dismissal.

DefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA)Free SpeechPublic ConcernAssisted Living FacilityElder AbuseMedicaid Fraud ProbeNewspaper Articles
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 41 v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

Plaintiffs challenged the defendants' wage rate determinations for work on Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP) projects, arguing that HUD's regulation 24 C.F.R. § 968.3 improperly classified 'development' work as 'operation' work, leading to lower wages. They also alleged violations of New York State Public Housing and Labor Laws. The court dismissed the federal claims (Counts One through Four) for lack of jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the Wage and Hour Administrator, emphasizing the need for agency expertise. The remaining state law claim (Count Five) was dismissed without prejudice due to the absence of federal claims, leading to the dismissal of the entire complaint against all defendants.

Wage Rate DisputesComprehensive Improvement Assistance ProgramHousing Act of 1937Davis-Bacon ActAdministrative Exhaustion DoctrineStatutory InterpretationHUD RegulationsFederal Court JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionPublic Housing Projects
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hope v. Perales

This case addresses the constitutionality of New York's Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP), which funds prenatal care but excludes medically necessary abortions for women with incomes above Medicaid eligibility but below 185% of the Federal poverty level. Plaintiffs argued that PCAP was unconstitutional due to underinclusiveness, impermissibly pressuring women towards childbirth, and violating various State constitutional clauses. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division initially found the statute unconstitutional. However, the New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that PCAP does not infringe upon the fundamental right of reproductive choice, as PCAP-eligible women are presumptively able to afford abortions, and the program neither coerces nor penalizes the choice to have an abortion. The Court concluded that PCAP bears a rational relationship to the State's interest in providing prenatal care and improving public health.

Reproductive RightsPrenatal CareAbortion FundingState ConstitutionDue Process ClauseEqual Protection ClausePublic Health LawSocial Services LawGovernment FundingLegislative Intent
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frew v. Gilbert

This civil action, filed on September 1, 1993, addresses the alleged failure of the State of Texas to implement a Medicaid program ensuring timely, comprehensive healthcare for over 1.5 million indigent children eligible for the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program. Plaintiffs moved to enforce multiple provisions of a 1996 consent decree, alleging defendant non-compliance in areas like outreach, medical and dental checkups, managed care operations, and provider training. The court found defendants in violation of numerous decree provisions, citing insufficient outreach, inadequate provision of checkups (especially dental and for specific subgroups), data inaccuracies, and failures in managed care implementation. Defendants' objections to enforceability, based on § 1983 and Eleventh Amendment immunity, were largely rejected, with the court affirming its jurisdiction to enforce provisions stemming from actionable federal rights under the Medicaid Act. The opinion concludes by detailing the specific violations and affirming the enforceability of the decree's terms, while acknowledging some of defendants' recent improvement efforts.

Medicaid ProgramEPSDT ServicesChildren's HealthcareConsent Decree EnforcementState Non-ComplianceManaged Care SystemOutreach EffectivenessDental CheckupsMedical CheckupsTransportation Assistance
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kenton v. Wyman

Petitioner, a 35-year-old father of five, was enrolled full-time in the SEEK program at college. His public assistance grant was reduced, and housekeeping services discontinued, because he refused to seek employment that interfered with his schooling. The court examined whether the hearing officer should have disqualified herself (found she was qualified), whether the petitioner was entitled to public assistance while in the SEEK program (found he was not as he wasn't a minor or in an approved vocational program), and whether he required notice for discontinuance of housekeeping services (found he did, but he had a fair hearing). The court ultimately directed that the petitioner be reimbursed for welfare allowances deducted during the period leading up to the State's fair hearing decision, acknowledging a new regulation requiring continued payments during that time, but upheld the other decisions.

Public AssistanceWelfareSEEK ProgramFull-Time StudentEmployabilityFair HearingHousekeeping ServicesGrant ReductionArticle 78 ProceedingSocial Services Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Covert v. Niagara County

Claimant, a public assistance recipient, suffered a work-related injury while assigned to Niagara County through a work experience program. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim and determined an average weekly wage based on public assistance benefits. After public assistance benefits were suspended, the claimant sought lost wage benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ decision, ruling that payments made under the work experience program constituted "wages" under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Niagara County and its third-party administrator appealed this decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues, thus precluding immediate appeal. The court noted that review could be sought if and when a final determination on wage replacement benefits is issued.

Wage DeterminationPublic Assistance BenefitsWork Experience ProgramInterlocutory AppealAppellate JurisdictionMedical Evidence SufficiencySchedule Loss of UseLost Wage ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewFinality of Decision
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,258 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