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. CV-23-1672
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

Matter of Vujeva v. Dairy Conveyor Corp.

The claimant, Jozo Vujeva, sustained injuries to both shoulders while working as a mechanic. Following permanency evaluations, a dispute arose regarding the schedule loss of use (SLU) percentages, with the claimant's physician and the carrier's consultant providing differing findings. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board rejected the claimant's physician's findings due to non-compliance with the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment, specifically regarding the use of a goniometer and repeat measurements. The Board instead credited the carrier's consultant's findings, awarding a 34.5% SLU of the right shoulder and a 27% SLU of the left shoulder. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and that opinions not supported by objective findings consistent with the guidelines may have little evidentiary value.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Shoulder InjuryMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Range of Motion (ROM)GoniometerMedical Impairment GuidelinesEvidentiary ValueExpert Medical OpinionSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04616 [162 AD3d 1356]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2018

Matter of Elias-Gomez v. Balsam View Dairy Farm

Claimant Antonio Elias-Gomez, a farmhand, sought workers' compensation benefits for a right shoulder injury allegedly sustained in May 2014 while assisting in a difficult calf birth. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, citing lack of timely notice and absence of a compensable accident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim but the Workers' Compensation Board later modified, denying benefits on the grounds that claimant did not sustain an accident in the course of employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court deferred to the Board's credibility determinations, which included discrediting claimant's account of a calf birth on the alleged injury date and noting inconsistent histories regarding his shoulder pain and injury mechanism.

Workers' Compensation ClaimEmployment InjuryShoulder InjuryFarm AccidentCausal RelationshipSubstantial Evidence ReviewCredibility FindingNotice of InjuryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dittert v. Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc.

Plaintiffs Jason Dittert, Anthony Lombardo, and Walter J. Finn sued Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc., for personal injuries sustained during armed robberies while employed by Dairy Barn Stores, Inc. An earlier action against Dairy Barn was dismissed due to Workers' Compensation being the exclusive remedy. Plaintiffs argued Oak Tree was the 'alter ego' of Dairy Barn or a 'joint venturer,' but this claim was also barred by Workers' Compensation Law. On appeal, plaintiffs contended a Dairy Barn District Supervisor, allegedly an Oak Tree employee, breached a duty by failing to order a store closure after a robbery warning. The court determined the supervisor was a co-employee, rendering the action barred by Workers' Compensation Law, and found no proximate cause for the injuries. Consequently, Oak Tree's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against it was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineVicarious LiabilityCo-employee DefenseProximate CauseAppellate ProcedureComplaint DismissalEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1988

Claim of Goodman v. Pollio Dairy Products

In 1979, the claimant's husband, Ralph Goodman, died during employment, leading to the claimant being awarded death benefits by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer, Pollio Dairy Products, and its insurance carrier objected, arguing for an offset of Social Security survivors’ benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (1-c). Although initially deemed ineligible, the claimant began receiving Social Security benefits in 1982, prompting the carrier to request a reopening of the case for the offset. The Board ultimately denied the carrier's request, ruling that an offset only applies if benefits are received at the time of the original award, not subsequently. The employer and carrier appealed, but the Board's decision was affirmed, with the court finding its interpretation of the ambiguous statute rational and reasonable.

Death BenefitsSocial Security OffsetWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationSurvivors BenefitsEmployer AppealCarrier AppealWorkers' Compensation BoardStatutory AmbiguityAdministrative Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pasqualini v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund

This case involves principals of Zodiac Industries, Inc. (Carl, Ann, Frank Pasqualini, and Sarah Lido) who sued the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, the International, and Local 38 over pension service credits. The plaintiffs sought fifteen years of past service credit, which they claimed was promised to them to induce Zodiac to sign a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Fund denied these credits, citing plan rules. The Court, however, found that 'extraordinary circumstances' warranted applying the principle of estoppel against the Fund. The court ruled in favor of the four owner-members, declaring them entitled to fifteen years of past service credit and ordering the Fund to reconsider their pension applications. Claims brought by other employees and against the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and Local 38 were dismissed.

ERISAPension BenefitsPast Service CreditEstoppelCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion OrganizingContract EnforcementEmployee Benefit PlanFiduciary DutyDistrict Court
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08227
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

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

In 2006, claimant Grace Kelly established a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) repeatedly sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, which was denied by Workers' Compensation Law Judges. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these denials and assessed $500 penalties against both SIF and its counsel, Walsh and Hacker, for filing an application for review without reasonable grounds. Walsh and Hacker appealed the penalty imposed against them to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division found insufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that Walsh and Hacker's application lacked reasonable grounds, and therefore reversed the penalty against them, modifying and affirming the Board's decision.

PenaltiesAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAttorney SanctionsAdministrative LawBoard DecisionJudiciary Law § 431
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Saratoga Skydiving Adventures v. Workers' Compensation Board

Saratoga Skydiving Adventures appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision upholding a stop-work order. The initial order was issued after an investigation revealed the company lacked workers' compensation coverage, with owner Bob Rawlins asserting his workers were independent contractors. Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied Saratoga Skydiving's application to lift the order. The appellate court affirmed this denial, determining that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employer-employee relationship for pilots and jump instructors, given their integral role in the business and Rawlins' control over their work. Consequently, Saratoga Skydiving was required to maintain workers' compensation coverage for these individuals.

Workers' CompensationStop-Work OrderEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSkydiving BusinessHazardous EmploymentUninsured Employers’ FundAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLabor Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forshay v. Star Dairy, Inc.

Plaintiff James M. Forshay was injured in a vehicle accident while riding with defendant Harry J. Huffman. At the time of the accident, both Forshay and Huffman were employed by Mountain Dairies, Inc. Forshay initiated a lawsuit, but defendants argued that the action was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) due to the co-employee status of Forshay and Huffman. The Supreme Court granted defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and denied Forshay's subsequent motion for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the orders, concluding that defendants provided sufficient proof of co-employment and that the plaintiff failed to diligently pursue discovery to refute this claim.

Workers' CompensationCo-employeeSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseDiscoveryAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryVehicle AccidentNew York LawLitigation
References
9
Case No. 532391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

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

Claimant, Rebecca Richman, appealed three decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding her claim for a work-related right shoulder injury. She alleged a fall at work on January 19, 2018, but did not seek medical treatment for 19 months. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Board reversed, finding that Richman failed to submit sufficient, credible medical evidence to demonstrate a causally-related injury and denied her claim. The Board subsequently denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's finding of no causally-related injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation ClaimCausation (Medical)Shoulder InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyBoard ReversalAppellate Division ReviewBurden of ProofCredibility of EvidenceOsteoarthritis DiagnosisDelayed Medical Treatment
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 22,550 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