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

McLeod v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary restraining order against Local 25, a labor union, alleging unfair labor practices against Sarrow-Suburban Electric Co., Inc. and Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc. The charges, filed on September 14, 1964, claimed Local 25 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by attempting to force employers to assign work to its members. A preliminary investigation by the Board found reasonable cause to believe the charges were true, supporting the request for injunctive relief under Section 10(J) of the Act. Evidence showed Local 25 demanded Brunswick Hospital break its contract with Sarrow and assign work to its members, subsequently initiating a work stoppage through picketing. The Court found reasonable cause for the Director's belief and granted the temporary restraining order.

unfair labor practicetemporary restraining orderlabor disputeNational Labor Relations Actpicketingwork stoppagelabor unioninjunctionDistrict Courtcollective bargaining
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Robinson v. Holiday Showcase Restaurants, Inc.

Claimant sustained a left knee injury in 1995, later including reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). Indemnity benefits were settled in 2002 with a $27,000 lump-sum payment, with the employer's carrier retaining liability for medical treatment. In 2005, the carrier sought to transfer medical liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied this, ruling that the three-year lapse period from the last compensation payment had not passed, as the lump-sum settlement was allocated to extend benefits until December 31, 2008, under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (7). This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the carrier's argument that § 25-a (7) applies only to nonschedule adjustment settlements and found no basis to disturb the Board's conclusion.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLump Sum SettlementMedical LiabilityIndemnity BenefitsReflex Sympathetic DystrophyStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaynard v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case addresses whether peaceful picketing, ostensibly to inform the public about substandard wages, can be enjoined as a secondary boycott or an inducement to strike in a jurisdictional dispute. The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary injunction against Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, alleging unfair labor practices after Local 25 picketed a job site where Unity Electric Co. was a subcontractor. Despite Local 25's claim that the picketing was solely informational, employees of other subcontractors refused to cross the picket lines, causing work stoppages. The court, considering Local 25's past actions and the totality of circumstances, found reasonable cause to believe that the picketing had an objective beyond mere public information, aiming to effect a secondary boycott and compel the assignment of electrical work to Local 25 members. Consequently, Local 25 was enjoined from further picketing at the Highland site pending final disposition by the Board.

Labor DisputeSecondary BoycottJurisdictional DisputePicketingTemporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesArea StandardsNational Labor Relations ActUnion ActivityConstruction Industry
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Bank v. Village of Tuckahoe

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability for a claimant's left knee injury shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 2005, and compensation benefits were paid until June 20, 2005. In April 2012, a physician requested an MRI, which was performed and revealed a meniscal tear. Subsequently, surgery was authorized and performed in July 2012. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator sought to shift liability to the Special Fund, a move initially rejected by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge but later approved by the Board. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the case was not "truly closed" after the MRI request was approved. The court held that the case was reopened in April 2012, within the statutory seven-year period from the date of injury, thus precluding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened Case DoctrineMedical Treatment AuthorizationCase Closure DeterminationSeven-Year RuleLast Payment of CompensationMeniscal TearMRI AuthorizationSurgery Authorization
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 26, 2013

Claim of Hunter v. Tops Market, Inc.

The case involves an appeal concerning the transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant had an established workers' compensation claim for right carpal tunnel syndrome, with a later diagnosis of left carpal tunnel syndrome. Despite a 10% schedule loss of use for the right hand, the employer's request to transfer liability was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board ruled that the case was never truly closed because issues regarding the left carpal tunnel syndrome remained unresolved, as evidenced by a doctor's report. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that further compensation proceedings were still contemplated, thereby preventing the transfer of liability.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCarpal Tunnel SyndromeOccupational DiseaseSchedule Loss of UseTransfer of LiabilityCase ClosureBoard Decision AffirmedAppellate DivisionNerve Conduction Study
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Greey v. Yaphank Fire Department

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter, sustained work-related injuries in December 2005. Her workers' compensation claim was established but marked for no further action as she incurred no compensable lost time. In September 2013, the employer requested to transfer medical liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, arguing that more than seven years had passed since the injury and three years since the last payment of compensation. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied this request, finding the case improperly reopened and lacking proof of current liability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that in the absence of proof of further medical or indemnity benefits payable, and with the claimant's affidavit attesting to no claims for reduced earnings, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the transfer of liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesLiability TransferVolunteer FirefighterMedical LiabilityIndemnity BenefitsSeven Year RuleThree Year RuleAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Andres v. Occidental Chemical

The case involves a claimant who filed for death benefits following a decedent's passing, attributed to asbestos exposure, after previous disability claims were closed for lack of medical evidence. The employer sought to transfer liability to the Special Funds Conservation Committee under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled § 25-a inapplicable, citing the inability to establish a date of disablement. On appeal, the court affirmed this decision, concluding that the claim for death benefits was made within seven years of death, rendering paragraphs (1) and (2) of § 25-a (1) inapplicable. Furthermore, paragraph (3) of § 25-a (1) was also deemed inapplicable due to the lack of a discernable date of injury or disablement in the occupational disease context.

Asbestos exposureDeath benefitsWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial FundsDate of disablementDate of injurySeven-year ruleLiability shiftOccupational diseaseAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rathbun v. D'Ella Pontiac Buick GMC, Inc.

In February 1999, claimant experienced work-related wrist and elbow pain, later diagnosed as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier initially accepted the claim and authorized medical treatment. In 2006, claimant sought authorization for left wrist surgery, which the carrier denied, asserting that liability shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. This was based on the lapse of seven years from the injury date and three years from the last compensation payment. The Workers’ Compensation Board deemed § 25-a inapplicable. However, the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the case was "truly closed" in July 2003 when right wrist surgery was authorized, as no further proceedings were contemplated. Consequently, the court held that Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a indeed applies, shifting liability to the Special Fund, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCarpal Tunnel SyndromeOccupational InjuryMedical Authorization DenialCase ReopeningStatute of LimitationsLapse of TimeTruly Closed Case DoctrineAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washburn v. Bob Hooey Construction Co.

This case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant's entitlement to benefits. The claimant, who had received prior benefits for chest and left shoulder injuries, sought new benefits for neck and back injuries following a motor vehicle accident. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board denied the carrier's application to shift liability to the Special Funds Conservation Committee under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing that § 25-a should apply due to the time elapsed since the original injury and last payment. However, the court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the case had not been officially closed, thus making § 25-a inapplicable.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeCase ReopeningClosed Case DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of DiscretionNeck InjuryBack Injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,806 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