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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03108 [238 AD3d 1393]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Matter of Solomon-El (Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Norma Solomon-El was terminated from her employment as a direct care healthcare worker after failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, having had her request for a religious exemption denied. She was subsequently disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits by the Department of Labor, a decision upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Although the Board's initial July 29, 2022 decision was later rescinded and replaced by a December 5, 2023 decision (which again upheld the disqualification, finding no sincerely held religious beliefs), Solomon-El's appeal was solely from the July 2022 decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed her appeal as moot due to the rescinded decision and because she abandoned any challenge to the superseding December 2023 decision by failing to file an updated brief. The court also noted that, even on the merits, substantial evidence would support the Board's December 2023 determination.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary SeparationGood CauseCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateReligious ExemptionAppeal Board DecisionMoot AppealAbandoned AppealSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1981

Donovan v. Blasters, Drillrunners & Miners Union, Local No. 29

The Secretary of Labor initiated an action against Local 29 under the LMRDA, challenging the results of an April 1980 supervised election. The Secretary sought to nullify the election and mandate a new supervised election, alleging a violation due to an employer's contribution for campaign materials. Local 29 cross-moved for certification of the election results, while an unsuccessful candidate, Smith, moved to intervene. The court denied all motions, citing the Secretary's unexplained eleven-month delay in seeking relief as a failure to act "promptly" under § 482(c). Although a technical violation was acknowledged, the court emphasized the importance of expeditious resolution in union election disputes and denied intervention due to the denial of the Secretary's motion and other factors.

Union electionsLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Employer contributionsElection supervisionTimelinessInterventionUnion democracyElection irregularitiesStatutory interpretationCampaign finance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2010

Blyer v. ONE STOP KOSHER SUPERMARKET, INC.

Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of NLRB Region 29, petitioned the District Court for interim relief against One Stop Kosher Supermarket, Inc. under 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). The Director sought an order compelling One Stop to bargain with Local 338, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, after One Stop failed to honor a recognition agreement. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found the recognition agreement binding. The District Court granted the petition, finding reasonable cause for unfair labor practices and irreparable harm to the Union's collective bargaining rights, ordering One Stop to provide information and bargain, but stipulating that any agreement not be implemented until the NLRB's final decision.

National Labor Relations BoardUnfair Labor PracticesInterim InjunctionCollective BargainingUnion RecognitionLabor LawDistrict CourtSection 10(j)Employer-Union RelationsMandatary Injunction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Patel v. Tal Transportation, Inc.

Claimant, a driver for Tal Transportation, Inc. (TTI), was injured in an automobile accident in April 1996 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant to be an employee of TTI and established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship for various injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision on October 18, 2000, confirming the employment relationship. Subsequently, based on a stipulation with the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, the WCLJ awarded claimant a 17½% schedule loss of use of the left arm, which the Board affirmed on December 18, 2001. TTI appealed this latter decision, attempting to challenge the employment relationship, but the court found that TTI's appeal was untimely regarding the employment finding. Since TTI did not challenge the schedule loss of use award itself, the Board's December 18, 2001 decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseEmployment RelationshipTimeliness of AppealAutomobile AccidentUninsured Employer's FundDriverInjuryNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAdministrative Law
References
1
Case No. ADJ8438087
Regular
Feb 24, 2017

CONSUELO ACEVEDO vs. SYSTEM SOLDING USA, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending a prior decision to find that Tri-City Health Group's lien was timely filed. The Board affirmed the finding that Komberg Chiropractic's lien was barred by the statute of limitations due to late filing on December 29, 2015, when services ended December 28, 2012. However, Tri-City Health Group's lien, filed electronically on March 21, 2016, was deemed timely, as the deadline of March 19, 2016, fell on a weekend and the next business day was utilized. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding Tri-City Health Group's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsStatute of LimitationsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 4903.5EAMSElectronic FilingBusiness DayTimely Filed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2002

Zamfino v. Furman

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated December 16, 2002, which denied her application for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a personal injury action settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Appellate Court affirmed the order, finding that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion. The court reiterated that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5) bars continuing workers' compensation benefits if a claimant settles a third-party action without carrier consent or a court compromise order. While judicial approval nunc pro tunc is possible under specific conditions (reasonable settlement, no claimant fault for delay, no carrier prejudice), the decision rests on the court's discretion. The Appellate Court concluded that the Supreme Court appropriately denied the plaintiff's application.

Judicial Approval Nunc Pro TuncSettlement of Personal Injury ActionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCarrier ConsentCompromise OrderCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewDelay in ApplicationPrejudice to CarrierNunc Pro Tunc Application
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00333 [168 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Vazquez v. Skuffy Auto Body Shop

Luis Vazquez, an auto body technician, sustained a work-related back injury in 2013 and received workers' compensation benefits. His benefits were suspended in November 2015, and upon his application for reinstatement, the carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to undisclosed work for a landscaping business. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no violation, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, determining that Vazquez knowingly made material misrepresentations about his return to work and was subject to mandatory disqualification of benefits from April 25, 2016, to December 28, 2016, and future indemnity benefits after December 29, 2016. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Vazquez violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making false representations and omissions regarding his work activity to obtain benefits. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's imposition of a penalty disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits, citing a pattern of deceit.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent MisrepresentationDisqualification of BenefitsUndisclosed Work ActivityCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardIndemnity BenefitsLandscaping Business
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castleberry v. Hudson Valley Asphalt Corp.

This case concerns an application by a plaintiff, injured in 1973, for the apportionment of attorney's fees incurred in a third-party action. The plaintiff, who receives weekly workers' compensation benefits from Utica Mutual Insurance Co., secured a $75,000 settlement after an initial judgment was set aside on appeal. The central issue was whether the compensation carrier, Utica Mutual, should bear the full amount of the attorney's fees for the $75,000 settlement, thereby vacating its $20,402 lien. The court, exercising its discretion under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29, determined that since the entire settlement benefited the carrier by reducing its future obligations, the carrier should be responsible for all attorney's fees, and its lien was consequently vacated.

Attorney's Fees ApportionmentLien VacationThird-Party SettlementInsurance Carrier LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Subrogation RightsEquitable ApportionmentJudicial DiscretionStatutory BenefitWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1980

Corbin, Ltd. v. State Division of Human Rights

The Human Rights Appeal Board's order, dated December 18, 1980, which upheld a finding of unlawful sex discrimination against petitioners, was unanimously annulled. The court granted the petition and dismissed the complaint, also denying the cross motion to enforce the Board's order. The decision found that the commissioner's determination lacked sufficient evidence. Specifically, the complainant was denied pregnancy-related disability benefits solely for not applying within the 26-week period stipulated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 217(1). The court deemed it speculative to assume petitioners would have denied an earlier application, noting a prior timely claim for similar benefits from this employer was paid.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawTimeliness of ApplicationAdministrative ReviewEvidentiary StandardHuman Rights LawDisability BenefitsJudicial AnnulmentEmployment Discrimination
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,332 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