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. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2004

Matter of Rosenblum v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

This case, Matter of Rosenblum v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., was heard by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. The decision was rendered on March 23, 2004. The outcome of the case was that the appeal was withdrawn and discontinued. This indicates a resolution where further judicial review was halted by the appellant.

Appeal WithdrawnDiscontinuedWorkers' CompensationCourt of AppealsNew YorkCase Resolution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ovadia v. Office of Industrial Board of Appeals

The Court of Appeals remitted *Matter of Ovadia v Office of the Indus. Bd. of Appeals* (19 NY3d 138 [2012]) back to this Court. The determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, dated December 14, 2009, which had affirmed an order directing petitioners to pay claimants unpaid wages, was unanimously annulled. The matter has been remanded for further proceedings. These proceedings specifically involve determining whether Ovadia made an enforceable promise to pay workers for their continued work following Bruten’s disappearance and whether the workers relied on this promise by continuing to work at the construction site for six days.

AnnulmentRemandUnpaid wagesIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of Department of LaborWorkers' relianceEnforceable promiseCourt of AppealsAppellate reviewLabor Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Knoll v. Chemung County

Claimant, an employee of Chemung County, injured his back and used accrued sick leave and vacation time for wage replacement during disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board found a compensable injury and ordered awards paid to the County as reimbursement. The County, however, only partially restored claimant's leave, leading to a dispute. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board ruled that the claimant's accrued leave must be fully restored. The County appealed this decision. The appeals court reversed the Board's determination, referencing *Matter of Jefferson v Bronx Psychiatric Ctr.*, and stated that full restoration would result in a windfall for the claimant, a disproportionate outcome. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLeave AccrualsReimbursementDisabilityWage ReplacementSick LeaveVacation TimeDouble RecoveryOverpaymentAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. No. 14
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2020

The Matter of the Claim of Sandra L. O’Donnell v. Erie County

Claimant Sandra L. O’Donnell, an employee of Erie County, received a Workers’ Compensation Board award for loss of post-accident earnings due to a permanent partial disability. Employer Erie County and its carrier challenged this, arguing O’Donnell failed to show efforts to find work. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially upheld the award, applying a discretionary inference from Matter of Zamora v New York Neurologic Assoc., but later admitted a departure from its administrative precedent. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, remitting the case. The Court clarified that while the 2017 amendment to WCL § 15 (3) (w) eliminated post-classification labor market attachment obligations, it did not alter pre-classification requirements. The matter is remanded for the Board to explain its rationale and any departure from its established precedent.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentInvoluntary RetirementAdministrative PrecedentStatutory InterpretationRemandNew York Court of AppealsWCL Section 15(3)(w)
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 1998

Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The County of Westchester appealed orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The Supreme Court had granted the Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc.'s petition to quash administrative subpoenas (Matter No. 1) and denied the County's motion to enjoin the Association from challenging the subpoenas (Matter No. 2). The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding that the County failed to adhere to Workers’ Compensation Law § 300.10 (c). This statute mandates that subpoenas to a claimant's treating physician can only be issued upon the physician's non-appearance at the first adjournment, not as a routine practice prior to attempts at voluntary appearance. The court emphasized that the County's prior practice violated the statute and impeded the remedial goals of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Administrative LawWorkers' CompensationSubpoena ComplianceAppellate CourtLabor RelationsStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessCollective BargainingJudicial ReviewPublic Sector Employment
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01011 [169 AD3d 1477]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2019

Matter of Riccelli Enters., Inc. v. State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd.

This case involves an appeal stemming from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which had granted partial summary judgment to Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., et al., and 3679 River Road, Inc., et al. These parties were respondents and intervenors-respondents, respectively, while the State of New York Workers' Compensation Board and others were the appellants. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reviewed the appeal. However, prior to a full merits decision, the appeal was dismissed. The dismissal was a result of a stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for all parties involved on January 15, 2019.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionSummary JudgmentAppeal DismissalStipulation of DiscontinuanceOnondaga CountyJudiciary LawFourth DepartmentProceduralCase Dismissal
References
2
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Ass'n of Municipal Employees, Inc. v. County of Suffolk

The plaintiff, Suffolk County Association of Municipal Employees, Inc., appealed an order dismissing its complaint against Suffolk County. The Union sought to permanently enjoin the County from imposing mandatory furloughs and discharging employees under a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied a preliminary injunction. The appellate court modified the order, finding that the Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction. However, it affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating that loss of employment does not constitute irreparable harm as affected workers are entitled to reinstatement and back pay if they prevail.

Public EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementMandatory FurloughsEmployee DischargeSubject Matter JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmBudget DeficitPersonnel ReductionsAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balcerak v. County of Nassau

Balcerak, a correction officer, sought General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits after a work-related automobile accident. Nassau County denied these benefits, despite Balcerak having already been granted Workers’ Compensation benefits for the same injury. Balcerak argued that the Workers’ Compensation Board's finding of a work-related injury should collaterally estop Nassau County from denying the § 207-c benefits, a position supported by the Supreme Court and Appellate Division. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that collateral estoppel does not apply because Workers’ Compensation Law and General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits serve distinct purposes and have different eligibility standards. The Court emphasized that § 207-c is specifically for heightened-risk duties related to the criminal justice process, unlike the broader Workers’ Compensation coverage, and remitted the case to the Appellate Division to assess the rational basis of the County's denial.

Collateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cCorrection OfficerWork-Related InjuryBenefit EligibilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNassau CountyArticle 78 Petition
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 37,005 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