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

Claim of Lloyd v. New Era Cap Co.

The claimant, a sewing machine operator, suffered a permanent low back injury in a 2003 workplace fall, leading to an award of workers' compensation benefits. The self-insured employer sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, arguing for apportionment of the disability with a preexisting 1975 gunshot wound. However, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied this request, finding the claimant to have a permanent total disability solely due to the 2003 accident, thus precluding reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to reclassify disabilities and its non-binding nature of party stipulations that are not properly approved. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the 2003 accident alone caused the permanent total disability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPermanent Total DisabilityPreexisting ImpairmentApportionmentMedical EvidenceBoard AuthorityStipulationAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sciame v. Airborne Express, Inc.

This case addresses the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a) concerning the maximum weekly benefits a claimant can receive for concurrent schedule and nonschedule awards. The court reaffirms its established precedent that these concurrent payments cannot exceed the statutory cap of $400 per week for 2004 injuries, irrespective of whether the nonschedule award stems from a permanent disability. This principle was also extended to include periodic payments for a schedule loss of use award and nonschedule award payments for temporary disability. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 and 25 did not indicate legislative intent to overturn this longstanding cap. Consequently, the Board's decision, which held that the claimant's receipt of maximum weekly benefits from a nonschedule award precluded additional benefits from a schedule loss of use award, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit MaximumsConcurrent AwardsSchedule Loss of Use AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory CapJudicial Precedent AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Law Interpretation2009 Amendments AnalysisPermanent Disability Benefits
References
11
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06531
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

Matter of Jennings v. Stop & Shop

Claimant, Hope J. Jennings, a supermarket clerk, suffered a work-related shoulder injury in 2007, leading to a classification of nonschedule permanent partial disability with a 50% loss of wage-earning capacity in 2012, subject to a 300-week durational cap for benefits. Following further causally-related surgeries in 2017 (shoulder) and 2019 (cervical fusion), claimant sought temporary total disability benefits after the durational cap on her permanent partial disability benefits had expired. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) ultimately ruled that the expiration of the durational cap on permanent partial disability benefits does not preclude a claimant from seeking temporary total disability benefits following a causally-related surgery. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (2) (temporary total disability) and § 15 (3) (w) (permanent partial disability) operate under distinct statutory provisions, and the durational cap applies only to benefits payable under the latter paragraph.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15Temporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityDurational CapWage Loss BenefitsCervical Fusion SurgeryShoulder InjuryReclassification of DisabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 535144
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Hope Jennings

Hope J. Jennings, a supermarket clerk, sustained a work-related shoulder injury in 2007, leading to established workers' compensation benefits. She was classified with a nonschedule permanent partial disability in 2012, subject to a durational cap for wage loss benefits, which expired in November 2018. Following a causally-related cervical fusion surgery in July 2019, claimant sought temporary total disability benefits, arguing these should not count towards the permanent partial disability cap. The Workers' Compensation Board, on full Board review, rescinded an earlier decision and ruled that the expiration of the durational cap did not preclude claimant from seeking temporary total disability benefits after subsequent surgeries. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that temporary total disability benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (2) are distinct from permanent partial disability benefits under § 15 (3) (w) and are not subject to the latter's durational caps.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityDurational CapWage Loss BenefitsCervical Fusion SurgeryShoulder InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 15
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01444 [225 AD3d 1189]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2024

Jesmain v. Time Cap Dev. Corp.

Plaintiff Connor B. Jesmain was injured at a construction site on property owned by 980 James Street, LLC, while moving a stack of drywall panels that fell on his ankle. He commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Time Cap Development Corp. and 980 James Street, LLC (980 James defendants), and Interior Builders Framing and Drywall LLC. The 980 James defendants also sought contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Syracuse Energy Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action due to issues of fact regarding safe storage and a dangerous material pile. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against 980 James, denied contractual indemnification for 980 James defendants against Syracuse Energy, and granted summary judgment dismissing 980 James defendants' cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Interior Builders. The decision affirmed the denial of Interior Builders' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and other cross-claims.

Construction Site InjuryDrywall AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04073
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Jagiello v. Air Tech Lab, Inc.

Czeslaw Jagiello had an established workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease that became disabling in 2017, in addition to a prior claim for World Trade Center site injuries, under which he received $400 weekly in temporary partial disability benefits. The dispute revolved around the amount of additional benefits for the occupational disease claim, with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initially determining $480.71 weekly but capping the concurrent award at $801.32 weekly, leading to an award of $401.32 weekly for the occupational disease. Jagiello argued the statutory cap should be $870.61 weekly, thus seeking $470.61 weekly. The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, clarifying that while the combined weekly benefit was statutorily capped at $870.61 under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6), the appropriate temporary partial disability award, being two-thirds of the difference between pre- and post-accident average weekly wages, was correctly limited to $801.32, which was two-thirds of his average weekly wages at the date of disablement.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseTemporary Partial DisabilityConcurrent AwardsStatutory Maximum RatesAverage Weekly WageWorld Trade Center ClaimAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsBenefit Calculation
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,964 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