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
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zechmann v. Canisteo Volunteer Fire Department

This case addresses whether a claim by a surviving spouse for death benefits, traceable to a 1951 injury, is time-barred under New York's Workers' Compensation Law. The Special Fund for Reopened Cases argued for the application of

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDeath Benefits ClaimTime-Barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsContinuing JurisdictionClosed Cases ReopeningDisability ClaimCausal RelationVolunteer Firemen's Benefit Law
References
13
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05370 [174 AD3d 1026]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2019

Matter of Rexford v. Gould Erectors & Riggers, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding liability for death benefits. The decedent suffered heart attacks in 1987 and 1991, with liability for his workers' compensation claim transferring to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 1997. Following his death in 2016, his administrator sought death benefits, alleging the 1987 heart attack contributed to his demise. A WCLJ and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the State Insurance Fund was the proper carrier, citing American Economy Ins. Co. v State of New York and Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), thereby absolving the Special Fund. The carrier appealed, arguing that Matter of Misquitta v Getty Petroleum should control. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, confirming that the Special Fund is liable for consequential death claims if liability was transferred before January 1, 2014, as in this case.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesHeart AttackCausally Related DeathLiability TransferAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentJudiciary LawWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-a
References
3
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. ADJ9440770 ADJ8897603
Regular
Nov 02, 2016

LEE WOOLEVER (Deceased); PENNY WOOLEVER; DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH

This case concerns a claim for workers' compensation death benefits by Penny Woolever, the ex-wife of deceased employee Lee Woolever. Ms. Woolever argued she was a total dependent despite their divorce due to ongoing financial support and a close relationship. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that she was not a dependent, as their divorce was final and they never resumed cohabitation. The Board distinguished this case from precedent allowing dependency claims based on reconciliation. Consequently, the death benefit was awarded to the Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit.

Esophageal cancerDeath benefitsDependency claimLabor Code section 3502Reconciliation of marriageSpousal supportTotal dependentDivorce decreeWCJ ReportLloyd Corporation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dellauniversita v. Tek Precision Co.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claim for death benefits. Claimant’s husband suffered a work-related injury in 1987 and later died. The claimant, as his widow, filed for death benefits. However, the claimant herself died before the causal relationship between her husband’s death and the 1987 incident could be established. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her claim for death benefits abated upon her death. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing precedents that claims for death benefits abate if a determination on the merits, such as causal relationship, has not been established prior to the claimant’s death.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsClaim AbatementCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewProcedural IssuesPrecedentLegal Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barrington v. Hudson Valley Fruit Juice, Inc.

The claimant's decedent, a factory laborer, suffered an unwitnessed intracerebral hemorrhage at work and subsequently died. The employer controverted the claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. A WCLJ initially closed the case for lack of prima facie medical evidence, but a subsequent WCLJ reopened and found sufficient medical evidence based on the presumption of compensability in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1). The Workers’ Compensation Board then rescinded this decision, ruling that claimant's medical reports did not constitute prima facie evidence of a causal relationship. On appeal, the Court found that the Board erred in requiring prima facie medical evidence in this unwitnessed death case, compelling the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption. The Court also noted that the employer had not presented evidence to rebut this presumption. The decision of the Board was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationIntracerebral HemorrhageUnwitnessed DeathPresumption of CompensabilityCausal RelationshipPrima Facie Medical EvidenceBoard ErrorReversalRemittalDeath Benefits Claim
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamal v. Gohel

This case involves an appeal by the New York State Insurance Fund (SIF) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to extinguish SIF's right to claim a credit or offset against Workers' Compensation death benefits and to compel reinstatement and retroactive payment of these benefits. The plaintiff had initially received death benefits from SIF after her husband's work-related death, and also won a jury award in a wrongful death action against a third party. SIF later asserted a right to a credit or offset against the death benefits for the jury award proceeds, suspending payments, which the plaintiff challenged. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that primary jurisdiction for determining the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law, particularly regarding an insurer's right to claim a credit or offset, rests with the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the Supreme Court.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation BenefitsInsurance FundCredit or OffsetPrimary JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewDutchess CountyStatutory RightsDeath Benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Claim of Picinich v. Cayuga Crimmins

The case involves an appeal from decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which awarded death benefits to the widow and three minor children of a deceased employee. The employee, a construction worker, was found dead by electrocution at his New York City work site shortly after his midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift ended. A referee and the board determined his death arose out of and in the course of his employment. Appellants contended the death did not arise out of or in the course of employment. The court disagreed, finding substantial evidence that the death occurred in the course of employment, triggering a presumption under Workmen's Compensation Law § 21 that it also arose out of employment. Evidence suggesting a personal pursuit was deemed speculative and insufficient to rebut the presumption. Consequently, the board’s determination was affirmed.

Electrocution DeathWork-related AccidentCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentStatutory PresumptionDeath BenefitsWidow and Minor ChildrenAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceSalvaging Cable
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 17,107 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