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

Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC

Brenda Cornell sued 360 West 51st Street Corp. for personal injuries allegedly caused by indoor exposure to dampness and mold in her Manhattan apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding Cornell failed to prove general or specific causation under the Frye standard. The Appellate Division subsequently reversed this, suggesting Cornell's expert opinion had "some support" in scientific literature. However, the Court of Appeals, in this opinion, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Cornell failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court reiterated that scientific "association" does not equate to "causation" and found her expert's differential diagnosis insufficient due to lack of exposure quantification and inadequate ruling out of other causes. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was ultimately granted.

Mold ExposurePersonal InjuryCausationFrye StandardScientific EvidenceExpert Witness TestimonySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEnvironmental HealthDifferential Diagnosis
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Depczynski v. Adsco/Farrar & Trefts

This case addresses a workers' compensation claim for occupational hearing loss, focusing on the interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb concerning the 90-day limitations period. The central question is whether 'knowledge' to trigger this period requires a formal medical diagnosis or the claimant's admitted awareness of the injury and its work-related cause is sufficient. The claimant, employed by Farrar & Trefts (later Adsco Manufacturing Corp.), experienced significant noise exposure and recognized his hearing loss and its occupational link in 1980. However, he did not receive a medical diagnosis until January 1991, having filed his claim in December 1989. The Workers’ Compensation Board dismissed the claim as untimely, finding the claimant had knowledge in 1980, but the Appellate Division reversed, requiring a medical diagnosis for 'knowledge.' The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, ruling that the claimant's admitted awareness of his injury and its cause in 1980 initiated the limitations period, irrespective of a formal medical diagnosis. Consequently, the court deemed the claim, filed over two years from the disablement date, as untimely and dismissed it.

Occupational hearing lossWorkers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsDelayed discovery ruleMedical diagnosis requirementCausation awarenessEmployer liabilityInsurance carrierJudicial interpretationWorkers' Compensation Board
References
12
Case No. ADJ10243412
Regular
Jun 10, 2019

DEBRA LUX vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

This case involves an injured firefighter seeking workers' compensation for a right knee injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of a finding of 17% permanent disability, arguing the administrative law judge erred by combining range of motion and diagnosis-based impairments, and by not apportioning the diagnosis-based impairment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the medical evaluator adequately explained the departure from standard AMA Guides methodology for rating the combined impairments. The Board also affirmed no apportionment of the diagnosis-based impairment as no substantial evidence showed non-industrial factors contributed to the need for surgery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantPermissibly Self-InsuredAdministered by CORVELFirefighterIndustrial InjuryRight KneePermanent DisabilityWhole Person Impairment
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05131 [186 AD3d 1149]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2020

Matter of Clarke v. City of New York

Petitioner Adrianne Clarke sought to annul the New York City Transit Authority's (NYCTA) decision to deny her differential pay following a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) injury sustained during a work-related flight. The NYCTA denied the request, citing Clarke's late notification of the injury and the uncertainty surrounding whether her travel constituted a "workplace activity" for differential pay eligibility. The Supreme Court upheld the NYCTA's decision as rationally based, noting that traveling to work is generally not considered a workplace activity and Clarke had a personal history of DVT. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no error in the denial of differential pay.

Differential PayDeep Vein ThrombosisWorkplace InjuryTimely NoticeAssigned DutyTravel TimeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewRational BasisWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
2
Case No. 5:00-CV-1055 (FJS)(DEP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2002

Daigle v. West

Plaintiff Roger G. Daigle initiated a consolidated action against Togo West, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other VA Hospital employees, alleging employment discrimination and sexual harassment. The core of the dispute revolved around a settlement agreement stemming from an earlier EEO complaint, which Daigle claimed was breached by the VA Hospital through subsequent acts of discrimination and retaliation, including being forced to undergo medical exams and a wrongful diagnosis. The court addressed the exhaustion of administrative remedies, determining that it lacked jurisdiction over claims preceding July 1995, except for allegations related to Dr. Ispahani's diagnosis. While the court affirmed the enforceability of the settlement agreement, it denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the July 1995 claims and Dr. Ispahani's diagnosis, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained concerning whether these actions constituted a breach of the agreement.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliationSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractAdministrative RemediesEEOCSummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionVA Hospital
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Powell v. Sodus Cold Storage Co.

Plaintiff sustained injuries while installing insulation panels at defendant's facility when a co-worker dropped a rope used for hoisting a panel, causing it to strike the plaintiff. The defendant argued that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply due to a lack of height differential, but the Supreme Court denied their motion for a directed verdict, finding evidence of a height differential. The court concluded there was a triable issue of fact regarding the absence or inadequacy of a safety device under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court affirmed the judgment, upholding the denial of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and finding no error in the refusal to admit medical records or in the special verdict sheet.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Jury VerdictDirected VerdictHeight DifferentialSafety DeviceHoisting AccidentAppellate ReviewMedical Records AdmissibilitySpecial Verdict SheetPersonal Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Siegel v. Board of Educ. of City of New York

Plaintiffs, elementary school principals, filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the New York City School Board. They claimed that the wage differential between elementary and high school principals constituted gender discrimination. The defendant, the Board of Education, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the class was predominantly male and thus failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and that the wage differential was based on factors other than sex. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. It found no evidence of intentional wage discrimination and supported the defense that higher compensation for high school principals was due to greater responsibilities.

Title VIISex DiscriminationWage DifferentialElementary School PrincipalsHigh School PrincipalsSummary JudgmentEqual Pay ActBennett AmendmentPublic EducationGender Discrimination
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of White v. Tougher Industries

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the timely filing of a claim for occupational hearing loss. The claimant, a sheet metal worker, filed a claim in December 1994, alleging work-related hearing loss first noticed in 1989. The Board determined the claim was timely filed under Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb, finding the claimant only gained knowledge of the work-relatedness after a medical diagnosis in January 1995. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the claimant's earlier suspicions were insufficient to trigger the 90-day filing period. The court concluded that the record supported the Board's finding that the requisite knowledge was acquired upon medical diagnosis.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational DiseaseHearing LossTimeliness of ClaimKnowledge RequirementMedical DiagnosisAppellate ReviewSection 49-bbBoard DecisionAffirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Sawyer

Dale R., an involuntarily committed patient at Central New York Psychiatric Center, diagnosed as a pedophile, moved for the appointment of either an independent or consulting psychiatric expert for his examination in a retention hearing. The underlying proceeding was initiated by Donald A. Sawyer for involuntary retention. The court denied the request for an independent expert, citing concerns about judicial neutrality in a controversial medical field (pedophilia diagnosis). However, the court granted the appointment of a consulting psychiatric expert, deeming it necessary to protect the respondent's due process liberty interests, as significant issues regarding diagnosis and prognosis were raised. The decision emphasized the court's discretion in appointing experts under Judiciary Law § 35 (4) and the need for both sides to present proof in open court.

involuntary civil commitmentpsychiatric expertdue processMental Hygiene LawCorrection Lawpedophilia diagnosisexpert testimonyjudicial discretionliberty interestsmental illness
References
16
Case No. No. 95
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

The Matter of John Borelli v. City of Yonkers

This case addresses a dispute between the City of Yonkers and 39 of its permanently disabled, retired firefighters regarding the calculation of their General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) supplement. The core issue is whether certain compensation, specifically holiday pay, check-in pay, and night differential, constitutes “regular salary or wages” for the purpose of this supplement. The Court concluded that “regular salary or wages” includes monetary compensation to which current firefighters are contractually entitled based on the performance of their regular job duties, thus requiring the inclusion of holiday pay and check-in pay. However, it excludes monetary compensation based on the performance of additional responsibilities beyond their regular job duties, and therefore, night differential should not be included. The lower court's decision was modified to reflect this interpretation.

General Municipal Law 207-aDisabled Firefighters' BenefitsRegular Salary CalculationCollective Bargaining Agreement InterpretationHoliday Pay EntitlementCheck-in Pay DisputesNight Differential ExclusionMunicipal Financial BurdenStatutory Remedial PurposePublic Sector Employment
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 295 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