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
Oct 20, 2022

Borelli v. JB IV, LLC

Plaintiff Patrick K. Borelli sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while performing exterior painting work at a property owned by defendant JB IV, LLC and leased to defendant Champz of Binghamton, LLC. He and his wife commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion for summary judgment by dismissing two regulatory violations under Labor Law § 241 (6), but otherwise denied both parties' motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining Labor Law claims, finding unresolved questions of fact regarding the creation of the dangerous condition and the adequacy of safety devices provided. The appeal from the initial order was dismissed as superseded by an amended order.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary Judgment DenialLadder FallConstruction AccidentsProperty Owner LiabilityContractor LiabilitySafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code Violations
References
19
Case No. 2014-2107 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2017

Renelique v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Civil Court judgment regarding assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, as an assignee, sought to recover for services rendered, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment. The Civil Court initially granted the plaintiff a principal sum of $11.45, dismissing the remainder of the complaint. The Appellate Term reversed this decision, concluding that the defendant failed to prove that the offered sum would fully compensate the plaintiff according to the workers' compensation fee schedule, thus denying the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. However, the plaintiff also did not establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for any amount exceeding $11.45. The court affirmed the plaintiff's right to statutory interest on both paid and future payments.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewStatutory interestTimely denialAssigned claimsInsurance coverageCivil CourtAppellate Term
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04257 [231 AD3d 250]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2024

Liciaga v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Robert Liciaga, who sustained severe personal injuries including paralysis due to an accident involving the New York City Transit Authority, was awarded substantial damages by a jury, including $40,000,000 for future medical expenses. The New York City Transit Authority appealed, contending that it was entitled to a collateral source hearing under CPLR 4545 to determine if Liciaga's future medical expenses could be offset by insurance coverage available through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), despite his uninsured status. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's denial of this request. It ruled that the defendant should be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that the plaintiff's future medical expenses could be reasonably certain to be reduced by available ACA insurance, emphasizing the statutory intent of CPLR 4545 to prevent double recovery and the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the collateral source hearing, while other aspects of the judgment, including reduced pain and suffering awards, were affirmed.

Personal InjuryCollateral SourceCPLR 4545Affordable Care ActFuture Medical ExpensesDouble RecoveryMitigation of DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictNegligence
References
59
Case No. CV-23-0409
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

Matter of Collins v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Jennel Collins, a cleaner for the New York City Transit Authority, sustained work-related injuries and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, the employer's report indicated acceptance of liability, but they later controverted the claim, arguing untimeliness due to the case not being indexed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The WCLJ initially found the employer waived defenses, but the Board reversed, finding the notice of controversy timely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter to the Board. The court found that the Board failed to address the claimant's arguments regarding the employer's binding reports of injury and potential violations of Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (a) and 12 NYCRR 300.37 (c), thus precluding meaningful judicial review.

Workers' Compensation LawNotice of ControversyTimeliness of FilingPrima Facie Medical EvidenceCausal RelationshipAdministrative AppealRemittalWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer DefensesAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. CV-22-2032
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

Matter of Deliso v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Claimant John Deliso filed an occupational disease claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and repetitive stress injuries. His treating physician, Christopher Kyriakides, assessed permanent impairment. The employer, New York City Transit Authority, alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, presenting surveillance videos that reportedly contradicted Deliso's statements about his functional abilities during permanency evaluations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found that Deliso made material misrepresentations, disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of material misrepresentations made to influence his workers' compensation claim and that the imposed discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion given the egregious nature of the deception.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Stress InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law Section 114-aMaterial MisrepresentationFraudSurveillance VideoIndemnity BenefitsDisqualification
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01694
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2020

Matter of Christakis v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Petitioner Gregorios Christakis appealed a Supreme Court judgment denying his petition to annul the New York City Transit Authority's denial of short-term disability benefits. Christakis, a General Superintendent, sought benefits for PTSD after his Workers' Compensation claim was denied. The respondent denied his short-term disability application, citing a prohibition against using sick leave for injury on duty and an alleged ineligibility for those who filed Workers' Compensation, neither of which was explicitly stated in policy. The Appellate Division found the denial arbitrary and capricious because the respondent failed to notify Christakis of the true reason, there was no risk of 'double-dipping' as the Workers' Compensation claim had been denied, and the sick leave exhaustion argument was disingenuous. The court reversed the lower court's decision, granted the petition, and remanded the matter for calculation of petitioner's benefits.

Disability BenefitsShort Term DisabilityWorkers' CompensationArticle 78 PetitionArbitrary and CapriciousAdministrative LawSick LeavePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderBenefit DenialJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

Matter of Daniels v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Mary Daniels, a train conductor, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging work-related injuries to her right shoulder, right elbow, and right hand from a March 4, 2022 incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie medical evidence for injuries including her neck, but ultimately established the claim only for the shoulder and elbow, finding no causally-related neck injury. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that while treating physicians opined on a causally-related neck injury, the claimant herself did not report neck pain in her initial claim or job injury report and denied it during the hearing, thereby undermining the factual basis for the medical opinions.

Workers' CompensationCausationNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryElbow InjuryCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewTreating PhysicianOrthopedic Surgeon
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06529
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

Matter of McLaurin v. New York City Tr. Auth.

The Court of Appeals addressed consolidated appeals concerning four claimants seeking Workers' Compensation benefits for psychological injuries (e.g., PTSD) due to COVID-19 workplace exposure in 2020. The Workers' Compensation Board had disallowed these claims, finding the stress was not greater than that experienced by similarly situated workers. The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board failed to consider "particular vulnerabilities" and applied "disparate burdens." The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions. It held that particular vulnerabilities are immaterial and that emotional stress-induced psychological injury is compensable only if the stress is "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment," a standard the claimants did not meet. The court also noted recent legislative amendments to the Workers' Compensation Law that establish a more favorable standard for PTSD claims, but clarified they do not apply retroactively to these cases.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryPTSDCOVID-19 ExposureWorkplace StressCompensability of ClaimsAccidental InjuryAppellate Division ReversedCourt of Appeals DecisionSimilarly Situated Workers Standard
References
18
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07123 [211 AD3d 1298]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Lambert v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

The case involves Joseph Lambert, a claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits for work-related repetitive use injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded a schedule loss of use (SLU) for his right arm, left arm, and right leg, payable weekly. Subsequently, Lambert requested the remaining SLU award be paid in a lump sum, which the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The employer, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, appealed this decision, arguing that a lump sum request must be made at the time of the initial award. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b) do not impose time limitations on an injured employee's request for a lump sum payment of an SLU award.

Schedule Loss of UseLump Sum PaymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityClaimant RightsEmployer AppealLegislative IntentPayment Timing
References
8
Case No. 2014-1595 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2017

Compas Med., P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The plaintiff, Compas Medical, P.C., as assignee, sought summary judgment for first-party no-fault benefits, while the defendant, American Transit Ins. Co., cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Civil Court initially denied parts of plaintiff's motion and granted parts of defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the third through seventh causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Term affirmed the denial of plaintiff's summary judgment on the second through seventh causes of action. However, it modified the order by denying the branches of defendant's cross-motion that sought to dismiss the third through seventh causes of action, citing triable issues of fact regarding verification receipt and payment in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactVerification of ClaimInsurance ClaimMotion to DismissMedical ProviderAssigneeWorkers' Compensation Fee Schedule
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 145 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