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

Fourth Branch Associates v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioners Joseph Harris and Fourth Branch Associates initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)'s issuance of a 'Notice of Complete Application and Determination of No Significance' and a '401 Water Quality Certificate' for a proposed hydroelectric project by ENERCO Corporation and Adirondack Hydro Development Corporation (AHDC). Petitioners contended that NYSDEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring an environmental assessment form, an environmental impact statement, or public hearings. AHDC argued federal preemption by the Federal Power Act, limiting NYSDEC's review to water quality standards. NYSDEC also moved for remand, acknowledging a procedural error in not requiring an environmental assessment form but arguing against preemption. The court determined that the Federal Power Act preempts NYSDEC from conducting a full SEQRA environmental review, limiting its authority to assessing compliance with State water quality standards. Consequently, NYSDEC was found to lack authority to require SEQRA-mandated forms, statements, or hearings for the 401 water quality certification.

Environmental LawFederal PreemptionWater Quality CertificationHydroelectric ProjectsState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Federal Power ActCPLR Article 78 ProceedingState AuthorityEnvironmental ReviewRegulatory Control
References
56
Case No. ADJ3996107
Regular
Mar 27, 2010

DENISE ELLIS vs. DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Department of Water & Power's (DWP) Petition for Removal. The DWP failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board also noted the petition was timely filed and DWP, as a municipal agency, is not required to verify it. Therefore, the petition was denied on its merits.

Petition for RemovalReparable HarmReconsiderationTimelinessVerificationMunicipal AgencySubpoena Duces TecumMold ExposureDiscovery OrderMandatory Settlement Conference
References
2
Case No. ADJ3151437
Regular
Oct 01, 2019

TERRY GUTSCHLAG vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER

This case involves Terry Gutschlag's claim for permanent total disability due to cumulative trauma injuries sustained while employed by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The defendant appeals a finding of 100% permanent disability, arguing that vocational evidence was insufficient and applicant was motivated to retire. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the original finding, concluding that substantial vocational evidence, particularly from expert Enrique Vega, demonstrated applicant's inability to return to the labor market. The Board found applicant's industrial impairments, compounded by pain and other issues, rendered him unemployable, thus rebutting the scheduled disability rating.

Permanent Total DisabilityCumulative TraumaVocational RehabilitationDiminished Earning CapacityAgreed Medical ExaminersWhole Person ImpairmentApportionmentWork RestrictionsPlaceabilitySynergistic Effect
References
0
Case No. ADJ10738767; ADJ14240277; ADJ14240278
Regular
Jun 18, 2025

JEANETTE FRANCE vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

Applicant Jeanette France sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) decision, which had found that she failed to prove discrimination under Labor Code section 132a following her termination. The Appeals Board granted France's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the previous Findings and Award, and substituted new findings. The Board concluded that the defendant, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, violated Labor Code section 132a by discharging France on February 1, 2017. This decision was based on France establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, and the defendant failing to provide substantial evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination, despite allegations of poor performance.

Labor Code Section 132adiscriminationretaliationterminationindustrial injuryprima facie caseburden of proofpretextbusiness realitiesemergency hire
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2001

Silvercup Studios, Inc. v. Power Authority

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed determinations by the Power Authority of the State of New York (NYPA) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) concerning a natural gas-powered turbine generator project in Queens. NYPA issued a Negative Declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and DEC issued air pollution control permits. The Supreme Court initially annulled both determinations, enjoining construction until NYPA prepared a full environmental impact statement (EIS). On appeal, the judgment was modified: the annulment of DEC's air permits was reversed, confirming their validity. The injunction against NYPA was stayed until January 31, 2002, to allow time for SEQRA compliance. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's annulment of NYPA's negative declaration, finding NYPA should have issued a positive declaration and prepared an EIS due to potential significant environmental impacts.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationAir Pollution PermitsArticle 78 ProceedingTurbine GeneratorEnvironmental Impact StatementJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate Division
References
18
Case No. MON 0290566
Regular
Aug 12, 2008

MARTHA MANRIQUEZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER/DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's findings that the defendant unreasonably delayed paying a stipulated award, thus incurring penalties and attorney's fees. The Board affirmed the judge's decision to limit the defendant's credit for a third-party settlement to prospective benefits due to the defendant's inaction in pursuing its credit rights after the stipulated award. Furthermore, the Board ruled that the defendant could not apply its third-party credit against the penalties and attorney's fees awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMartha ManriquezDepartment of Water and PowerLabor Code sections 4650(b)58145814.5Supplemental Findings and AwardPetition for Reconsiderationcumulative traumathird-party settlement
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05756 [164 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2018

James v. Crystal Springs Water

The plaintiff, Robert James, an employee of Manpower Group US, Inc., was injured while working at Crystal Springs Water premises and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. James then initiated a personal injury action against Crystal Springs Water. Crystal Springs moved for summary judgment, asserting it was James's special employer under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29, which would legally bar a negligence suit. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted this motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that Crystal Springs had established a prima facie case of special employment based on James's receipt of workers' compensation and Crystal Springs' control over his work details. The plaintiff's contradictory affidavit was deemed insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury LitigationAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityGeneral EmployerControl TestConflicting TestimonyNew York Labor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Case No. 2015-260 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2016

Telsey v. Harris Water Main & Sewer Contrs., Inc.

Jerry Telsey (plaintiff) sued Harris Water Main & Sewer Contractors, Inc. (defendant) in a small claims action for $2,800. Telsey claimed defendant should have immediately determined he didn't need a new water main, despite entering into a contract for installation. Defendant argued that subsurface plumbing issues often require excavation to identify the source of problems. The Civil Court dismissed the action, and Telsey appealed. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed the case under the 'substantial justice' standard for small claims and affirmed the judgment, finding that substantial justice was done between the parties.

Small ClaimsContract DisputeWater Main InstallationSubsurface PlumbingAppellate ReviewSubstantial JusticeCivil CourtKings CountyExcavationAffirmed Judgment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKinney v. Commissioner of New York State Department of Hearth

Plaintiffs Mary McKinney and Mechler Hall Community Services, Inc. sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the New York State Department of Health from implementing recommendations to close Westchester Square Medical Center (WSMC) and other facilities. Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, citing failure to state a cause of action, lack of standing, and failure to join a necessary party. The court initially granted a TRO for WSMC but, after reviewing arguments on standing and the constitutionality of the Enabling Legislation, denied the plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief. The court also granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing the complaint, finding no constitutional infirmity in the legislation that delegated power to the Commission on Health Care Facilities in the 21st Century to make recommendations for health care system streamlining.

Constitutional LawSeparation of PowersDelegation of Legislative AuthorityHealth Care Facilities ClosureTemporary Restraining OrderSummary JudgmentTaxpayer StandingCommon-Law StandingNew York State GovernmentAdministrative Agency Powers
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 5,252 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