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. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
References
1
Case No. CA 11-01225
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2012

BOARD OF ED. OF DUDEE CENTRAL, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal from a judgment concerning disciplinary charges against a tenured teacher, Douglas Coleman, by the Board of Education of Dundee Central School District. An initial Hearing Officer's award, which included a six-month suspension and continued health benefits, was challenged by the Board. The Supreme Court partially granted the Board's petition, vacating the dismissal of six specifications and the order for continued health benefits, and remitted the matter for further consideration. On remittal, the Hearing Officer reimposed the same penalty based on an erroneous legal interpretation regarding counseling memoranda. The Supreme Court then vacated this penalty and remitted the matter to a different hearing officer for penalty imposition. The Appellate Division affirmed both judgments of the Supreme Court, holding that counseling memoranda are not disciplinary actions and that the Hearing Officer exceeded authority by ordering continued health benefits during suspension.

ArbitrationTeacher DisciplineSchool BoardEducation LawCounseling MemorandaJudicial ReviewPenaltyHealth Insurance BenefitsAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1954

Peters v. New York City Housing Authority

The court granted the motion concerning the continued occupancy rights of the tenants. This decision affects the ongoing residency of individuals currently living in the property. Furthermore, an associated appeal has been formally scheduled to be heard and argued before the Court of Appeals. This hearing is slated to occur during its session in May of 1954.

References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jabril P.

The case concerns a proceeding under New York State Social Services Law § 392 to determine whether three children should remain in foster care. This court was directed by the Appellate Division, First Department, to provide findings after reversing previous orders to discharge the children to their parents. A new hearing in 1980 found the father unfit due to his demanding nature and inability to understand the children's needs. The mother, while in remission from prior issues, remained questionable in her ability to cope with the stress of the children's return, especially given the father's attitude and the return of an older son from prison. The court, balancing parental rights with the children's best interests, granted the agency's petition for continued foster care until March 1, 1981, imposing several conditions on the parents and the agency.

Foster CareParental RightsSocial Services LawChild WelfareFamily LawChild CustodyAppellate DivisionUnfitnessPsychiatric TreatmentVisitation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lindsay W.

The Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, which effectively dismissed a proceeding to continue the placement of a neglected child, Lindsay W. The Family Court had denied the Commissioner's request for a temporary extension of placement, citing the process server's error in service as an invalid excuse. The appellate court ruled that the Family Court abused its discretion by not granting the temporary extension, finding that the Commissioner had shown 'good cause' through good-faith attempts to notify the respondent mother and an excusable process server misunderstanding. The case was reversed and remitted to the Family Court to determine if the Commissioner's initial petition for extension, filed 11 days late, was also for 'good cause', which would then lead to a merits hearing on the extension of placement.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActPlacement ExtensionService of ProcessAbuse of DiscretionGood CauseParental RightsAppellate ReviewRemittiturTimely Filing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sanad

The People moved to reargue the court's September 5, 2014 decision that granted the defendant's motion for a Huntley hearing. The defendant, a police officer, was questioned by an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) regarding a prior arrest report, recanting an earlier statement where she claimed to have witnessed an assault. The People argued the defendant was not in custody or interrogated, thus not entitled to a Huntley hearing. The defendant countered that her statement was compelled, potentially under threat of job forfeiture, making it involuntary. The court granted the reargument motion but ultimately adhered to its prior decision, citing People v Weaver which mandates a Huntley hearing whenever a defendant claims a statement was involuntary. The court will determine the voluntariness of the statement by reviewing the totality of the circumstances at the hearing.

Criminal LawMotion PracticeReargumentHuntley HearingVoluntary StatementPolice OfficerSelf-IncriminationMiranda RightsGarrity RightsPublic Employment
References
27
Case No. ADJ7895528, ADJ944426 (VNO 0538295)
Regular
May 28, 2014

DANIEL BELLING vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning the WCJ's order to continue an expedited hearing. The applicant requires urgent medical treatment for a catastrophic injury, and a delay would cause irreparable harm. While the WCJ's discretion in managing discovery was not abused, the Board found that continuing the matter to a status conference was improper given the applicant's critical need for a prompt judicial determination of his medical care. The June 12, 2014 hearing was redesignated as a mandatory settlement conference to expedite resolution.

Petition for RemovalCatastrophic InjuryExpedited HearingUtilization ReviewMandatory Settlement ConferenceQualified Medical EvaluatorHome HealthcareStroke RehabilitationApportionmentIndustrial Injuries
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,481 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