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. Nos. 64 & 65
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2021

In the Matter of Verneau v Consolidated Edison; In the Matter of Rexford v Gould Erectors

This opinion from the New York Court of Appeals addresses two consolidated cases concerning the transfer of liability for death benefits claims to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 25-a (1-a). The core issue was whether this statute forecloses the transfer of liability for death benefits claims submitted on or after January 1, 2014, even if the worker's original disability claim liability had been transferred to the Special Fund before this cut-off date. The Court, interpreting the plain statutory language and relying on precedent that death benefits claims are "separate and distinct legal proceedings" from disability claims, concluded that liability for death benefits claims accruing after the deadline cannot be transferred to the Special Fund. Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's orders, reinstating the Workers' Compensation Board's decisions which had found the Special Fund not liable for these death benefits claims.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a)Special Fund for Reopened CasesDeath Benefits ClaimsDisability Benefits ClaimsStatutory InterpretationAccrual DateSeparate Legal ProceedingsInsurance Carrier LiabilityLegislative IntentNew York Court of Appeals
References
18
Case No. Nos. 56 & 58
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2020

Matter of Seawright v. Board of Elections / Matter of Hawatmeh v. State Board of Elections

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two consolidated cases, *Matter of Seawright* and *Matter of Hawatmeh*, to resolve a departmental split regarding the interpretation of Election Law filing deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic. In *Seawright*, the Appellate Division, First Department, had excused a candidate's belated filing of a cover sheet and certificate of acceptance due to COVID-19 related illness and quarantine, deeming it not a fatal defect. Conversely, in *Hawatmeh*, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found a candidate's late filing of a certificate of acceptance to be a fatal defect despite pandemic circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed the *Seawright* decision and affirmed the *Hawatmeh* decision, holding that Election Law § 1-106 (2) mandates strict compliance with filing deadlines. The Court concluded that the failure to timely file constitutes a fatal defect that courts cannot excuse, even under unique or extenuating circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing that it is the legislature's role to fashion exceptions to the law. Dissenting judges argued for a more flexible interpretation based on legislative intent behind pandemic-related laws and prior Election Law reforms, allowing for substantial compliance during the unprecedented health crisis.

Election LawCOVID-19 PandemicFiling DeadlinesFatal DefectStrict ComplianceBallot AccessJudicial DiscretionLegislative IntentAppellate Division ConflictQuarantine Requirements
References
39
Case No. 156 AD3d 1064
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

Claim of Pontillo v. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.

Claimant Robert Pontillo established a claim for pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer due to asbestos exposure while working for Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. After voluntarily retiring, claimant sought wage replacement benefits, asserting he had reattached to the labor market. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed an award of benefits, prompting Consolidated Edison and its claims administrator to appeal. The Appellate Division found that the Board failed to address the employer's argument regarding the claimant's burden to prove a causal link between his disability and his inability to find work. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Workers' CompensationAsbestos ExposurePulmonary DiseaseOccupational DiseaseWage BenefitsLabor Market ReattachmentVoluntary RetirementEarning CapacityCausationBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Choto v. Consolidated Lumber Transport, Inc.

The claimant, an owner-operator of a truck and trailer, suffered multiple injuries in April 2006 after falling from a loaded flatbed trailer. He subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, listing Consolidated Lumber Transportation, Inc. as his employer. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that an employee-employer relationship existed. On appeal, the court found insufficient substantial evidence to support the Board's finding, noting that the claimant owned and maintained his equipment, paid his own expenses and insurance, was issued an IRS 1099 form, and had flexibility in choosing loads. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Employee ClassificationIndependent Contractor StatusWorkers' Compensation AppealControl Test FactorsFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsSubstantial Evidence ReviewRemittal OrderTruck Driver InjuryLeased EquipmentSelf-Employment
References
13
Case No. CV-22-1999
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Matter of Schuette v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.

Claimant Dennis Schuette appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which denied a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a right wrist injury sustained in a workplace accident in 2019 while working for Consolidated Edison. Medical examiners initially opined that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and sustained a 73⅓% SLU to his right wrist. However, the Board found these medical opinions not credible, as the examiners were unaware of claimant's concurrent diagnosis and treatment for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and his ongoing work activities. The Board concluded that maximum medical improvement was not clearly established, making the SLU determination premature. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UsePermanent ImpairmentMaximum Medical ImprovementCarpal Tunnel SyndromeIndependent Medical ExaminationFraudCredibilityAppellate ReviewMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
6
Case No. 530286
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2020

Matter of Barton v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

Claimant Loretta Barton appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board which disallowed her claim for death benefits, arising from her spouse's occupational asbestosis. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a physician's report provided prima facie medical evidence, but the Board later precluded this report for non-compliance with a regulation requiring submission to all parties. Consequently, the Board disallowed the claim due to a lack of admissible evidence and closed the case. The Appellate Division determined that the Board's decision to disallow and close the claim was procedurally improper, as claimant should have been afforded an opportunity to submit additional evidence. The court, therefore, modified the decision by reversing the disallowance and closure of the case, remitting the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsAsbestosis ClaimOccupational DiseaseMedical Evidence PreclusionPrima Facie Medical EvidenceProcedural Due ProcessRemand for Further ProceedingsAppellate Division ReviewNYCRR RegulationsCausally-Related Death
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00652 [168 AD3d 1329]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2019

Matter of Figueroa v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

This case concerns Yvonne Figueroa's claim for workers' compensation benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, following her retirement from Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. The Workers' Compensation Board initially awarded her wage replacement benefits for a period due to reattachment to the labor market. However, the employer appealed, arguing that Figueroa failed to demonstrate that her disability, rather than other factors like age or economic conditions, caused her inability to secure new employment after her voluntary retirement. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found insufficient evidence to support the Board's award, concluding that Figueroa did not meet her burden. Consequently, the court reversed the benefits awarded from October 23, 2015, through December 10, 2015, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

occupational diseasebilateral carpal tunnel syndromeworkers' compensation benefitswage replacement benefitsvoluntary retirementlabor market reattachmentearning capacitysubstantial evidence reviewappellate reviewcausation in disability claims
References
8
Case No. 528566
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christine Kelly (Kelly, Kevin (dec'd)

Claimant Christine Kelly filed a claim for death benefits after her husband's death, alleging it was causally-related to his established asbestos-related occupational disease. Liability for the original disability claim had been transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2011. The employer argued the Special Fund should be liable for the death benefits claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board and the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed that the death benefits claim was a new and distinct claim, accruing at the time of death in 2016. Therefore, its transfer to the Special Fund was precluded by Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), as the Special Fund closed to new applications effective January 1, 2014, a ruling supported by Matter of Verneau v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, ruling that liability did not shift to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDeath Benefits ClaimOccupational DiseaseAsbestosisCausally Related DeathLiability TransferStatutory Cut-off DateAppellate DivisionThird Judicial Department
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03704 [139 AD3d 794]
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2016

Giasemis v. Giasemis

This case involves appeals concerning custody and medical decision-making authority for a child. The Supreme Court consolidated two matters (divorce and custody proceeding) but erred in dismissing the custody petition without a hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to consolidate and grant the mother final medical decision-making authority for the child. However, the court modified the order to reinstate the father's custody petition, vacating the Family Court's dismissal, and remitted the matter for a hearing. The father presented sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on modifying joint custody due to a breakdown in parental cooperation and the child's expressed desire to live with him.

Custody DisputeParental RightsMedical DecisionsJoint Custody ModificationBest Interests of ChildEvidentiary HearingConsolidation of ActionsFamily LawChild's WelfareAppellate Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 7,187 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